DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of the plurality of holes and the plurality of spaces being either the same or different (see for example claims 5 and 6).
The species are independent or distinct because each species is drawn to a different embodiment of the apparatus and only one such apparatus is usable per a method. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
- the species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
- the species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter,
- the species require a different field of search e.g. different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Sung Wook Kooh on March 9, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of the species of the width of the holes and the width of the spaces being the same. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 1-5, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (2010/0025237).
Kim teaches a deposition device comprising:
- a magnet part 130 with magnets 135 per Figs. 1 and 2 and related text,
- a substrate support facing the magnet part, see support 140, that supports substrate 150, the support having plurality of holes, see the holes (grooves) “H”, and
- each of the holes corresponds to a space between adjacent magnets as depicted.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 15-17, the magnets and holes are depicted as in a first direction and extending in a second direction, wherein the centers align, with the width of the spaces the same as the corresponding magnets as depicted.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the first direction is understood for example as right and left relative to the page as depicted in the figure, with the second direction being into and out of the page; the depth of the holes is in a third direction and is less than the thickness of the substrate support.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the support as depicted is between the magnet part and substrate, further to claim 19 the substrate is on the second plane.
Regarding claim 10, the pitch of the magnets is the same as the holes.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings include deposition mask 160 placed in the manner claim with the support 140 between the magnet and the mask.
Regarding claim 12, the support has a magnetic property [0025].
Regarding claim 14, the teachings above include all elements of the claim, wherein the device is shown per Fig. 1 including the noted magnetic part 130/135, and the substrate support, being magnetic [0025], and as per above includes the plate 140 with the first surface having holes facing the magnet part and arranged in the first direction (same direction as the magnets 135).
Regarding claim 20, as described above, the device includes:
- a magnetic portion including a plurality of magnets, 130/135,
- a substrate support with a first plane facing the magnetic portion (see support 140)
- and a second plane, see downward plan,
- wherein the support comprises a plurality of holes (H) formed in the first plane (facing the magnetic portion).
In regard to the “distort a magnetic force”, that is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). In this case, the structure of the prior art and instant claimed subject matter is the same and therefore the prior art would be capable of the same distortion of the magnetic force of the magnet part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings do not include a refrigerant in the support, but examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to include refrigerant in supports or other chamber parts in order to control temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 teachings of Kim are the closest known prior art to the claimed invention but there is no reason to provide the holes on the opposite side relative to the side facing the magnets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712