DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 06/30/2026, addressing claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 10-11 rejection from the final office action (06/04/2026), by argument only is entered and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9, 12-15, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II and Species b-d, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim interpretations
The “An apparatus for manufacturing a display device” of claim 1 is considered an intended use of the apparatus.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanosu et al. (US 20070178225, hereafter ‘225), in view of Oh et al. (US 20170159167, hereafter ‘167) and Kido et al. (US 20020179013, hereafter ‘013).
‘225 teaches some limitations of (note the underline portion is from submission of 05/11/2026):
Claim 1: Vapor Deposition Crucible, Thin-film Forming Apparatus Comprising The Same, And Method Of Producing Display Device (title, includes the claimed “An apparatus for manufacturing a display device”),
FIG. 12 shows an embodiment of the patterning of the pixels in the display device (e.g., organic EL panel) in conventional vapor deposition mask. The vapor deposition mask 161 used in the so called mask vapor deposition comprises a metal sheet 162 provided with holes 164 corresponding to the pixels patterned on the main surface of the substrate 103 retained in a frame 163 … By bringing this vapor deposition mask 161 in close contact with the main surface of the substrate 103, and spraying the evaporated particles 360 from the crucible 1 positioned below the vapor deposition mask 161, a layer of the material of the evaporated particles 360 can be formed on the main surface of the substrate 103 in the regions exposed within the holes 164 formed on the metal sheet 162 ([0016], includes the claimed “the apparatus comprising: a mask assembly; and a deposition source comprising a deposition part that supplies deposition material to the mask assembly”),
In order to solve such unfavorable situation, the inventors of the present invention provides a crucible structure of FIG. 11 which is adapted for use in the mask vapor deposition based on the crucible 1 discussed in Example 1. In order to suppress transfer of the radiant heat from the crucible 1 and the heater case 3 to the vapor deposition mask 161 and the substrate 103, a radiation blocking body having thermal insulating function (hereinafter referred to as insulation mechanism) 165 is provided above the crucible 1 ([0118]), The heater case 3 comprises the first heater case 3a accommodating "the lower heater 22 (for heating the evaporation chamber 9) which is arranged to oppose the side surface and the lower surface of the crucible 1" and "the upper heater 21 (for heating the pressure-controlling chamber 10) which is arranged to oppose the side surface of the crucible 1", and the second heater case 3b accommodating "the heater 170 (for heating the protrusion 169) which is arranged to oppose the upper surface of the crucible 1" ([0119], 3rd last sentence, the outer envelope that surrounds the heaters 21, 22 reads into “a deposition frame” of the claimed “wherein the deposition part comprises: a deposition frame including an inner space; a crucible disposed in the inner space of the deposition frame”), For lasting stable vapor deposition of a material for a long term, the present invention provides the vapor deposition crucible comprising an evaporation chamber defined by a container part of the material (abstract, includes the claimed “and accommodating the deposition material”);
the discharge aperture 81 is formed on the end of the protrusion 169 remote from the discharge plate 82 ([0118], last sentence, includes the claimed “a nozzle connected to the crucible and that sprays the deposition material accommodated in the crucible”);
The heater case 3 comprises the first heater case 3a accommodating "the lower heater 22 (for heating the evaporation chamber 9) which is arranged to oppose the side surface and the lower surface of the crucible 1" and "the upper heater 21 (for heating the pressure-controlling chamber 10) which is arranged to oppose the side surface of the crucible 1" ([0119], 3rd last sentence, includes the claimed “a first heating portion disposed in the inner space of the deposition frame between the deposition frame and the crucible and that heats the deposition material accommodated in the crucible”);
the heater 170 is provided to oppose the exterior surface of the protrusion 169 ([0118], last sentence, includes the claimed “and a second heating portion”),
Fig. 11 shows the claimed “wherein, in the first position of the second heating portion, the second heating portion is laterally spaced from the nozzle, laterally overlaps a majority of the nozzle, vertically overlaps the crucible, and does not vertically overlap the nozzle“.
‘225 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: the crucible being withdrawable from the deposition frame;
and (a second heating portion) rotatably connected to the first heating portion and rotatable between a first position for heating heat the nozzle and a second position for allowing withdrawal of the crucible from the deposition frame,
wherein, in the second position, the second heating portion is rotated away from the nozzle such that the second heating portion does not vertically overlap the crucible providing a withdrawal space, allowing the crucible to be withdrawn from the deposition frame.
‘167 is an analogous art in the field of Thin Film Deposition Apparatus Having Plurality Of Crucibles (title), Deposition, which is a method generally used to manufacture semiconductor devices or flat display devices, is a process that deposits an organic substance, which is obtained by evaporating a deposition substance from the surface thereof by heating a crucible keeping the deposition substance ([0002]). ‘167 teaches that The top plate 50 may be opened and closed. That is, by opening the top plate 50, it is possible to take the distribution conduit 20 out upward to replace it … it is possible to attach/detach a source without separating the heaters 30 and 40 when replacing the source and it is possible to open the top plate 50 and simply separate a source upward (Fig. 2, [0076]).
A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the second heater case 3b of ‘225, in addition to the insulation mechanism 165, need to be opened to replace crucible. In other words, the second heater case 3b also function as a cover to the crucible 1.
‘013 is an analogous art in the field of Successive Vapour Deposition System, Vapour Deposition System, And Vapour Deposition Process (title), by evaporating different vapor deposition materials ([0004]). ‘013 teaches that he double-doored shutter 28 is provided with a pair of shutter plates, each pivoted at a corresponding pivot 28a to open and close the open top of the crucible 21 (Fig. 7, [0048]).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added a capability of opening the second heater case 3b from the first heater case 3a of ‘225, as taught by ‘167, for the purpose of replacing the source, as taught by ‘167 ([0076]). Furthermore, to have added pivot 28a of ‘013, between the second heater case 3b and the first heater case 3a of ‘225, for its suitability of opening the second heater/cover for replacing source, with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
‘225 further teaches the limitation of:
Claim 11: the second heater case 3b accommodating "the heater 170 (for heating the protrusion 169) which is arranged to oppose the upper surface of the crucible 1" ([0119], 3rd last sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the second heating portion comprises a heating member that generates heat”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘225, ‘167, and ‘013, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Heong (US 20160215384, hereafter ‘384). Alternatively, claims 1 and 11 are also rejected over ‘225, ‘167, ‘013, and ‘384.
‘225 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 4: The insulation mechanism (the radiation blocking body having the thermal insulator function) 165 according to the present invention is provided with the at least one reflection plate 166 ([0120], includes the claimed “further comprising: a reflector disposed between the first heating portion and the mask assembly to prevent heat generated in the inner space of the deposition frame from being transferred to the mask assembly”).
‘225’s reflector 166 has to be connected to a neighboring component in Fig. 11, otherwise it will fall down by the gravity. The combination of ‘225, ‘167, and ‘’013 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 4: (a reflector) connected to the deposition frame and (disposed between the first heating portion and the mask assembly to prevent heat generated in the inner space of the deposition frame from being transferred to the mask assembly),
Claim 5: wherein the reflector is detachable from the deposition frame.
‘384 is an analogous art in the field of DEPOSITION SOURCE INCLUDING REFLECTOR (title), Thermal physical vapor deposition is a technology to form an emission layer on a substrate surface by using vapor of a deposition material (for example, an organic material) ([0005]). ‘384 teaches that As shown in FIGS. 3 to 7, a reflector for a deposition source according to an exemplary embodiment may be disposed at an upper end of a frame 10 of the deposition source that receives predetermined organic particles. The reflector may be fin the form of a reflection plate 20 in which nozzle apertures are punched ([0038]), The reflection plate 20 may be formed on the upper end of the frame 10 of the deposition source and may include a predetermined heat-blocking layer in addition to the nozzle aperture 21 ([0041]), The double installation port 30 may be used to connect and arrange the reflection plate 20 and to include multiple plates 20a, 20b, and 20c. The double installation port 30 may be implemented in various forms, such as a structure having a plurality of engaging grooves 31 formed on an external portion of a body thereof ([0049]), As shown in FIGS. 4 to 7, one of the plurality of engaging grooves 31 may connect and fix the uppermost reflection plate 20a and another of the engaging grooves 31 may fix and attach a lower plate, such as the middle plate 20b ([0050]), By using the reflection plate 20 having the multi-plate structure, it may be possible to minimize influence due to external air upon vapor heating for a deposition process and at the same time and to achieve heat loss of the deposition source ([0052]).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the single reflector 166 of ‘225 with a double installation port 30 with multiple reflectors connecting to the frame 10 of ‘384, for the purpose of minimize heat loss, as taught by ‘384.
In case Applicants argue that ‘225 does teach a deposition frame of claim 1, ‘384 expressly teaches the frame 10.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘225, ‘167, and ‘013 (optionally with ‘384), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Mu (CN 106958007, hereafter ‘007).
The combination of ‘225, ‘167, and ‘013 (optionally with ‘384) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 7: further comprising: an angle limiting portion connected to the deposition frame and that blocks a portion of the deposition material sprayed from the nozzle to limit a supply angle of the deposition material supplied to the mask assembly.
Claim 8: wherein the angle limiting portion is detachable from the deposition frame.
‘007 is an analogous art in the field of Evaporation Device (title), for OLED display (P1, last line). ‘007 teaches that the evaporation device comprises a housing 202, said housing 202 is provided with an evaporation source 203, the evaporation source 203 is equipped with a nozzle 204, the nozzle 204 two sides is provided with a limiting plate 207. the limiting plate 207 side part connect with a vertical slide rail 205, the vertical slide rail 205 is connected with a horizontal slide rail 206, the restriction plate 207 position according to the substrate 201 of the material deposition requirement is adjusted such that the nozzle 204 of the material falls on the substrate 201 corresponding to the region … As shown in FIG. 2b, the size change of the substrate 201 only with the 2a difference, so that the position of the limiting plate 207 has been adjusted such that the nozzle 204 is the material whose deposition requirements matching with the substrate 201 (Fig. 2a, P5, middle). In other words, the limiting plates are connected to the housing/frame and can be adjusted far away from the nozzle), for the purpose of controlling evaporation area of the evaporation source (P2, 2nd complete paragraph). Various Figures of ‘007 clearly shows the limiting plates are detachable.
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have attached vertically adjustable limiting plate 207 attached to the frame/housing, as taught by ‘007, to the heater case 3 of ‘225, for the purpose of controlling evaporation area of the evaporation source (P2, 2nd complete paragraph).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘225, ‘167, and ‘103 (optionally with ‘384), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Yi et al. (US 20050039684, hereafter ‘684).
The combination of ‘225, ‘167, and ‘103 (optionally with ‘384) does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 10: wherein the second heating portion is connected to the first heating portion to heat the nozzle by heat transferred from the first heating portion.
‘684 is an analogous art in the field of Evaporation Source For Evaporating An Organic Electroluminescent Layer (title), The cover 25 of a circular plate shape fixed to the upper end of the external wall 23 is mounted on the cell cap 22 to contact the surface thereof. A lower reflector 26 and an upper reflector 27 are placed above the cover 25 in sequence (Fig. 4, [0053). ‘684 teaches that FIG. 11 is a sectional view showing another point evaporation source according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention ([0079]), The heat generated from the heating means 43A is transferred to the cover 45 made of metallic material ([0080]), the evaporation source according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention can maintain the cell cap aperture at a predetermined temperature by placing the cover to contact the cell cap, thereby transferring the heat generated in the heating means to the cell cap aperture through the cover … the problem that the vaporized evaporation material emitted through the cell cap aperture to outward is deposited around the cell cap aperture due to the decreased temperature can be efficiently resolved ([0084]).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the second heater 170 of ‘225 with a metallic material that transfer heat generated by the heating means (i.e. the first heater), as taught by ‘684, for the purpose of resolving problem of unwanted deposition around the cell cap, as taught by ‘684 ([0084]) and/or for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to 35 USC 103 rejection over Takanosu ‘225, in view of Oh ‘167 and Kido ‘013, Applicants argue that
The top plate 50 of ‘167 does not correspond to the heater case 3B of ‘225, wholly unrelated to the insulation mechanism 165 or the heater case 3b of ‘225, see the bottom of page 8 to the middle of page 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Nowhere in the OC states the above correspondence.
The OC includes this paragraph “A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the second heater case 3b of ‘225, in addition to the insulation mechanism 165, need to be opened to replace crucible. In other words, the second heater case 3b also function as a cover to the crucible 1”.
The OC has clearly set forth the reason of ‘167 is for the purpose of replacing the source from above. In ‘225, see Fig. 11 for example,, the components that need to be opened to replace the source in the crucible are the heater case 3b and the insulation mechanism 165.
The top plate 50 of ‘167 is to slide to open, not rotatably connected to the first heating portion, see the bottom of page 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
This is attacking reference individually.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
‘167 also teaches that … it is possible to slide the top plate 50 to open/close it. However, the present invention is not limited thereto and the top plate 50 may be opened/close in ways and by structures well known in the art ([0077]).
The rejection is ‘225, ‘167, and Kido ‘013. ‘013 teaches a rotably pivot 28a that allows the opening to access the crucible 21.
‘013 does not disclose a nozzle, the purpose of the double-doored shutter 28 is to open and close the crucible 21, if the upper end of the crucible 21 was to be considered the nozzle, the double door is to open and close the nozzle, see the bottom of page 10 to the middle of page 11.
This argument is found not persuasive.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the double-doored shutter 28 allowed the crucible to be withdrawable, particularly in light of ‘167 which teaches to replace the source in the crucible from the top.
Because of the protrusion 169 of ‘225 cannot be modified to be rotatably connect to the first heater case 3a, see the 2nd and 3rd complete paragraphs of page 11.
This argument is found not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the rotatably connection cannot be connected to the heater case 3a, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, ‘167 already suggests to move the top plate upward ([0078]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to move the heater case 3a of ‘225 upward as taught by ‘167 and then pivot as taught by ‘013, for the purpose of replacing the source.
Note Applicants’ limiting plate 117 and reflector 516 are moved upward before the second heating portion 515 can be rotated.
In Fig. 11 (of ‘225), the second heater case 3b is not laterally spaced from the protrusion 169, see the 4th and 5th complete paragraphs of page 11.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Fig. 11 of ‘225 clearly shows the heater case surrounds the protrusions, therefore, the second heater 170 is laterally spaced from the nozzle/protrusion 169.
The OC has clearly point out that the heater is the “a second heating portion” (middle of page 5).
‘225 fails to teach a second position in which the second heating portion is rotated away from the nozzle …, see the 6th complete paragraph of page 11.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Now Applicants attack the primary reference individually. Again, the rejection is based on ‘225, ‘167, and ‘013. ‘167 teaches the need to replace the source (crucible) by moving the top components up, and ‘013 teaches rotating these component in order to access the source/crucible.
See also conclusion in OC: US 20190211441 is cited for pivoting the sealing cover 20 to open (Fig. 2). US 20060283382 is cited for rotating cover 210 (Fig. 2). US 4600390 is cited for chamber top being removable or pivotable to provide ready access to the inside of the chamber (col. 2, lines 30-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190211441 is cited for pivoting the sealing cover 20 to open (Fig. 2).
US 20060283382 is cited for rotating cover 210 (Fig. 2). US 4600390 is cited for chamber top being removable or pivotable to provide ready access to the inside of the chamber (col. 2, lines 30-32).
US 20140264120 is cited for angle limiting plate 113 above reflector 111 (Fig. 1).
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights