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 8/10/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1. Claims 1-9 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements, specifically addressed in the prior art rejection of record.
As for the fixing plate fixed on a support frame and the support frame disposed on the ground, a fair review of the specification fails to provide any guidance or metes the bounds of the term support frame and the structure associated with that term. As such, the prior art by virtue of the disclosure of various structural features that can reasonably be considered within the broadly claimed support frame (in either embodiment, the support frame can be considered the chamber supports) as the fixing plate is fixed/rests on the chamber. As for the requirement of “on the ground” as the prior art used the chamber in the production, the system would reasonably be considered to be “on the ground” as broadly claimed. Even in the event that there is intervening structure, the claims or does the specification do not define the support frame to differentiate in structure over any broad structural feature (or combination of features as the case may be) that would result in the fixing plate being fixed and being supported to the ground, all of which is embodied by the prior art, see e.g. annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-9 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 1 requires “the ground”; however, this terms lack antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear the metes the bounds of the term ground as specifically required by the claims.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 “support frame” and support frame being on a ground 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 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) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104851477, hereinafter CN 477 taken with JP 2006205078, hereinafter JP 078 and CN 104596205, hereinafter CN 205.
Claim 1: CN 477 discloses an in-situ drying device (“reads on flash drying as claimed”) film forming apparatus (“for a perovskite solar cell” is deemed intended use), comprising: a platform (20 at Figure 3); a substrate disposed on the platform and (“configured to form a film layer” is deemed intended use); and a cavity cover movably disposed up and down on the platform (10 at see Figure 3 and ), and being able to enclose the substrate into a closed cavity surrounded by the cavity cover and the platform, a vacuum pipe being disposed on the cavity cover and being able to communicate the closed cavity with a vacuum pump (see Figure 3, exhaust can reasonably be considered a vacuum pump as claimed). It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
PNG
media_image2.png
184
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner cites here JP 078 which discloses a drying system that uses a vacuum pump to exhaust the processing chamber (“a vacuum pump (exhaust means) 89 that exhausts (sucks) the atmosphere in the processing chamber 60”) and therefore taking the references collectively, using a vacuum pump to exhaust would have been obvious as predictable method for removing the gases from the cavity. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
JP 078, also in drying within a cavity, discloses using a plurality of vacuum pipes are provided, and two or more of the vacuum pipes are connected with the vacuum pump via a connecting pipe, (see abstract, Figure 3B), electromagnetic valves are disposed on the connecting pipe (see above), and “the vacuum pump is in a normally open state” is deemed intended use of the claimed apparatus. JP 078 discloses using the plurality of exhausts as claimed to control the flow of exhaust gas (abstract) and thus using such would have been obvious to reap the benefits as outlined by JP 078.
CN 477 with JP 078 discloses all that is taught above and discloses a cavity cover as claimed; however, fails to including a fixing plate disposed above the cavity cover, a guide hole is formed in the fixing plate, and a guide pillar is disposed on an upper surface of the cavity cover and fitted in the guide hole. However, CN 205, also in the art of a cavity cover for drying (vacuum drying apparatus, see abstract) and the reference discloses a cavity cover, with a fixing plate disposed above the cavity cover, a guide hole in the fixing plate and a pillar disposed on the upper surface of the cover and fitted through the guide hole (figure 2-3 and accompanying text). Therefore, as CN 477 discloses a vacuum drying apparatus that includes a vertical lid, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 477 with the mechanism for applying the lid, as taught by CN 205, that is the fixing plate, the holes and the guide pillars through the holes, as CN 205 discloses that such is a known mechanism for placing a lid in a vacuum drying apparatus.
As evidenced by the below annotated Figures, the breadth of the claims as drafted requires “a plate” disposed above the cavity cover, a “guide hole” that is formed in the plate, pillars attached to the upper surface and fixed to the cavity cover and the pillar is inserted into the guide hole and fitted with the guide hole. Here, CN 205 would read on the broadly drafted claim requirement for at least the reasons as set forth herein. Specifically, the chamber top plate can reasonably read on “fixing plate” with a guide hole therein, and a pillar attached to the cavity plate.
PNG
media_image3.png
451
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, giving the terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, CN 205 would also disclose a fixing plate where the breadth of the claims does not define the metes and bounds of the term fixing plate and therefore it could encompass a plate and additional bellows attached thereto. As the term fixing plate is not limited to a structure consisting of a flat plate or a plate of a certain dimensions, the prior art can reasonably be considered to read on the broadly drafted claimed requirement.
PNG
media_image4.png
466
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for the fixing plate fixed on a support frame and the support frame disposed on the ground, a fair review of the specification fails to provide any guidance or metes the bounds of the term support frame and the structure associated with that term. As such, the prior art by virtue of the disclosure of various structural features that can reasonably be considered within the broadly claimed support frame (in either embodiment, the support frame can be considered the chamber supports) as the fixing plate is fixed/rests on the chamber. As for the requirement of “on the ground” as the prior art used the chamber in the production, the system would reasonably be considered to be “on the ground” as broadly claimed. Even in the event that there is intervening structure pieces, the claims or does the specification do not define the support frame to differentiate in structure over any broad structural feature that would result in the fixing plate being fixed and being supported to the ground, all of which is embodied by the prior art, see e.g. annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2: CN 477 fails to disclose valve as claimed. However, JP 078 discloses a valves on exhaust lines, including electromagnetic valve, on-off valves (“it is preferable to use an electromagnetic valve for the on-off valve”), the balance of the claim is deemed intended use of the valve. Using the known valve would have been obvious to provide control over the exhaust.
Claim 3-4: CN 477 fails to disclose the specific of the vacuum pipes as claimed. However, JP 078, also in drying within a cavity, discloses using a plurality of vacuum pipes are provided, and two or more of the vacuum pipes are connected with the vacuum pump via a connecting pipe, (see abstract, Figure 3B), electromagnetic valves are disposed on the connecting pipe (see rejection of claim 2 above), and “the vacuum pump is in a normally open state” is deemed intended use of the claimed apparatus. JP 078 discloses using the plurality of exhausts as claimed to control the flow of exhaust gas (abstract) and thus using such would have been obvious to reap the benefits as outlined by JP 078.
Claim 9: CN 477 discloses an pipe, which can reasonably be considered a “cylinder” as claimed and “driven” is not defined and mere intended use of the claimed apparatus. The mechanism of CN 205 discloses using a cylinder to achieve the raising and lowering of the lid (see Figure 2 and accompanying text) and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to raise and lower the lid using a cylinder as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 477 with JP 078 and CN 205 and further with JP 076677 U, hereinafter JP 677.
CN 477 discloses a seal ring (see Figures); however, fails to disclose the sealing ring is disposed on the platform and a groove formed in the cover. However, JP 677, in the art of vacuum drying and maintaining sealing property between the two parts and discloses including a sealer in the holding part, within a groove, and additionally including a groove in the lid to provide seal during the vacuum drying process (see 1, 2, seal 14 in groove 13 and notch in lid at 15). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 477 with JP 078 and CN 205 to include the seal ring on the platform and a groove in the lid to maintain sealing during drying.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 477 with JP 078 and CN 205 taken further with US 6120834, hereinafter US 835.
CN 477 with JP 078 and CN 205 discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the platform includes holes with a negative pressure pump. However, US 834, also in the art for vacuum drying a substrate discloses a platform with a holes therein and attached to a vacuum pipe so as to suck the substrate to the platform (column 3, lines 45-55, Figures) including a vacuum pipe to the platform during drying would have been obvious to reap the benefits of maintaining the substrate suction to the platform.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 477 with JP 078, CN 205 with US 835 and taken with CN 11282772, hereinafter CN 772.
CN 477 with JP 078 discloses a coating device and US 835 discloses a coating device with in situ drying (see Figure 2-4) and therefore using the coating head and cover in situ would have been obvious to provide a coating and drying at the same location. CN 477 with JP 078, CN 205 with US 835 fails to discloses coating head, wherein driving rods are connected with both sides of the coating head, respectively, sliders are connected to the driving rods and fit in slide rails, the slide rails extending a scraping direction of the coating head, and the driving rods are driven by linear driving devices. However, CN 772, also in the art of forming a coating on a substrate discloses including a coating head, driving rods connected to the coating head, sliders within slide rales and using linear driving devices to move the head as claimed (see Figure 4 and accompanying text, see entire reference). Therefore, using the coating head and moving mechanism as set forth by CN 772 would have been obvious as predictable to one ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 8: CN 772 discloses using servo motors to make the coating head move along the slide rail at varying speed (and thus the coating rods connecting the head to the rails would also capable of moving) and thus the use of such linear motor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the coating head linearly along the slide rails to control the coating process.
Conclusion
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