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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 has necessitated the new prior art rejections below. Namely, claim 1 clarifies that the high incident angle limiting plate is disposed closer to a center of the first nozzle than the low-incident angle limiting plate in the first direction necessitated the introduction of the prior art held to Lee et al (KR20200075246 which was cited in the IDS dated 8/28/2023 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by herewith)
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 refer to first and second direction and claims 15-20 refer to third direction. For the purposes of examination the first direction is interpretated as the x-direction or horizontal direction in a 3D coordination system, the second direction and height direction are interpreted as the y-direction or vertical direction in a 3D coordination system, and the third direction is interpreted as the z-direction in a 3D coordination system as supported by Fig. 5 of the present invention
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an angle limiting plate disposed at opposite side of the first nozzle and the second nozzles in a second direction intersecting the first direction and extending in the first direction as recited in claims 15-20.
Claims 4-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an angle limiting plate disposed at opposite side of the first nozzle and the second nozzles in a second direction intersecting the first direction and extending in the first direction as recited in claims 4-9.
Similarly, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the high-incident angle limiting plate includes a first portion and a second portion separated along the first direction as recited in claim 10.
Also, the prior art of record fairly teaches or fairly suggest the first portion and the second portion of the high-incident angle limiting plate are each semi-cylindrical as recited in claims 11-13.
Furthermore, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest that the high-incident angle limiting plate has a cylindrical shape as recited in claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR20200075246 which was cited in the IDS dated 8/28/2023 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by herewith).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Lee et al teaches a deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber CM; a deposition source disposed in the chamber and including nozzles 132 arranged in a first direction; and a deposition angle limiter disposed on the deposition source in the chamber, wherein the deposition angle limiter includes: a low-incident angle limiting plate 231 disposed between adjacent first and second nozzles (132 of 100a, 132 or 100c respectively) among the nozzles and spaced apart from the first nozzle 132 by a first height in a height direction intersecting the first direction; and a high-incident angle limiting plate 212 surrounding at least a portion of the first nozzle and spaced apart from the first nozzle by a second height in the height direction, wherein the first nozzle 100a extends in the height direction, wherein the high-incident angle limiting plate 212 is disposed closer to a center of the first nozzle 100a than the low-incident angle limiting plate 231 in the first direction. See Fig. 4 of Lee et al below.
Regarding claim 2: The deposition apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second height is greater than the first height. See Fig. 4 of Lee et al below.
Regarding claim 3: The deposition apparatus of claim 1, wherein the low-incident angle limiting plate 231, 241 and the high-incident angle limiting plate 212 have a first length and a second length in the height direction, respectively, and the second length is shorter than the first length. See Fig. 4 of Lee et al below.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Lee et al
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al US 10,184,167 teaches a restricting plate unit (angle limiting unit) for a vapor deposition device where first incident angle limiting plate 42 and second limiting plate 32 are provided See in Figs that plate 32 is closer to the center than plate 42.
Lee TW 201403911A teaches a deposition apparatus with angle limiting plates see Figs.
Han et al US 2020/0024724 teaches a manufacturing display apparatus with shutter (angle limiting plate surrounding the nozzles (deposition sources)).
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights