DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 & 32 in the application remain pending. Claims 1-7 & 9-18 were amended. Claims 19-32 remain cancelled. Claims 2-3, 7 & 11 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claim 33 is new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections
3. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b), of claims 1, 4-6, 8-10 & 12-18 are partially withdrawn per amendments of claims 4, 5-6, 9-10 & 12-18 and Applicant’s arguments being persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Claims 9, 12 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 9, lines 3-4 recite “each OVJP print bar of the one or more OVJP print bars”, then lines 4-5 recite “each OVJP print bar”, wherein it is unclear whether they are all the same print bar referencing claim 1 or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting lines 4-5 as “each OVJP print bar of the one or more OVJP print bars”. To correct this problem, amend lines 4-5 to recite “each OVJP print bar of the one or more OVJP print bars”.
As regards to claim 12, lines 1-2 recite “each OVJP print head”, then line 2 recites “each print head”, wherein it is unclear whether they are all the same print head referencing claim 1 or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting lines 1-2 as “each of the one or more OVJP print heads” and line 2 as “each of the one or more OVJP print heads”. To correct this problem, amend lines 1-2 to recite “each of the one or more OVJP print heads” and line 2 to recite “each of the one or more OVJP print heads”.
As regards to claim 16, lines 1-2 recite “each OVJP print head”, wherein it is unclear whether it is the same print head recited in claim 1 or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “each OVJP print head” as “each of the one or more OVJP print heads”. To correct this problem, amend lines 1-2 to recite “each of the one or more OVJP print heads”.
As regards to claim 17, line 2 recites the limitation “the plurality of OVJP print heads”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the plurality of OVJP print heads” as the “the one or more OVJP print heads” recited in claim 1. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “the one or more OVJP print heads”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18 & 33 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2013/0233244 A1) hereinafter Forrest in view of Quinn et al. (US 2018/0323372 A1) hereinafter Quinn (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Forrest are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Forrest discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), comprising:
one or more OVJP print heads (310) configured to eject material substantially in a primary vertical direction toward a substrate ([0099]; fig 7), each OVJP print head (310) of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) comprising a plurality of apertures (415) disposed across a horizontal distance (([0099]; fig 3-4, 7) on a surface of the print head (310) facing the substrate ([0099]; fig 7) ([0088]-[0090]; [0092]-[0094]; [0099]-[0101]; fig 3-8; clm 18); and
a float table (motorized x-y motion stage) configured to hold the substrate ([0099]; fig 7) below the one or more OVJP print heads (310), wherein the float table (motorized x-y motion stage) is movable through a distance of at least W in each of two horizontal dimensions in a plane perpendicular to the primary vertical direction during operation of the OVJP system (motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzles; and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]); however Forrest does not disclose one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads.
Quinn discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 3A-5B; clm 1), comprising one or more OVJP print bars (501), each comprising one or more OVJP print heads ([0064] - segments 502+503+504) (abs; [0053]; [0056]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; [0070]; [0073]; fig 3A-5B; clm 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads in the OVJP system of Forrest, because Quinn teaches the use of one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads that can be positioned relative to the substrate independently of each other allows a more consistent head-to-substrate distance being maintained even for substrates that are not uniformly planar (abs; [0056]) and multiplexing print heads to form print bars that span the width of the substrate allows all rows of pixels to be concurrent ([0053]).
As regards to claim 4, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein the one or more OVJP print head (310) are movable through a distance not more than W in each of two horizontal dimensions (the OVJP print head is movable through a distance not more than W in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzle patterned films; and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]); however Forrest does not disclose one or more OVJP print bars.
Quinn discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 3A-5B; clm 1), comprising one or more OVJP print bars (501) (abs; [0053]; [0056]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; [0070]; [0073]; fig 3A-5B; clm 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more OVJP print bars in the OVJP system of Forrest, because Quinn teaches the use of one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads that can be positioned relative to the substrate independently of each other allows a more consistent head-to-substrate distance being maintained even for substrates that are not uniformly planar (abs; [0056]) and multiplexing print heads to form print bars that span the width of the substrate allows all rows of pixels to be concurrent ([0053]).
As regards to claim 5, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein the float table (motorized x-y motion stage) is movable through a distance of at least W in each of the two horizontal dimensions (motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzles; and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]), however Forrest does not disclose 10W.
Although Forrest does not explicitly disclose the claimed movable spacing, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Forrest to have the movable spacing recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the movable spacing (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the movable spacing.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 6, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein the float table (motorized x-y motion stage) is movable through a distance of at least W in each of the two horizontal dimensions (motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzles; and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]), however Forrest does not disclose a distance equal to at least twice an edge dimension of the substrate in one of the two horizontal dimensions that is parallel to the direction of motion as the substrate is moved through the OVJP device during deposition of material on the substrate.
Although Forrest does not explicitly disclose the claimed movable spacing, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Forrest to have the movable spacing recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the movable spacing (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the movable spacing defined by a distance equal to at least twice an edge dimension of the substrate in one of the two horizontal dimensions that is parallel to the direction of motion as the substrate is moved through the OVJP device during deposition of material on the substrate.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 8, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein the float table comprises a pressure-vacuum (PV) float table ([0148]-[0149]).
As regards to claim 9, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein a height of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) is adjustable (a motorized z adjustment is provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]); however Forrest does not disclose a height of each of the plurality of OVJP print bars is adjustable, and/or a height of each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) on each of the one or more OVJP print bars of a plurality of OVJP print bars is adjustable independently of the height of the each of the one or more OVJP print bars.
Quinn discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 3A-5B; clm 1), comprising one or more OVJP print bars (501), each comprising one or more OVJP print heads ([0064] - segments 502+503+504) wherein a height of the one or more OVJP print heads ([0064] - segments 502+503+504) on each of the one or more OVJP print bars (501) is adjustable independently of the height of the each of the one or more OVJP print bars (501) (abs; [0014]-[0015]; [0053]; [0056]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]-[0065]; [0070]; [0073]; fig 3A-5B; clm 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads, wherein a height of the one or more OVJP print heads on each of the one or more OVJP print bars is adjustable independently of the height of the each of the one or more OVJP print bars in the OVJP system of Forrest, because Quinn teaches the use of one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads wherein a height of the one or more OVJP print heads on each of the one or more OVJP print bars is adjustable independently of the height of the each of the one or more OVJP print bars so that the one or more OVJP print heads can be positioned relative to the substrate independently of each other allowing a more consistent head-to-substrate distance being maintained even for substrates that are not uniformly planar (abs; [0056]) and multiplexing print heads to form print bars that span the width of the substrate allows all rows of pixels to be concurrent ([0053]).
As regards to claim 10, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), the one or more OVJP print heads (310) is sufficient to deposit material over not more than 50% of the substrate ([0099]; fig 7; [0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]), however Forrest does not disclose wherein the one or more OVJP print bars comprise a total number of the one or more OVJP print heads sufficient to deposit material over not more than 50% of the substrate.
Quinn discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 3A-5B; clm 1), comprising one or more OVJP print bars (501), each comprising one or more OVJP print heads ([0064] - segments 502+503+504) wherein the one or more OVJP print bars comprise a total number of the one or more OVJP print heads sufficient to deposit material over not more than 50% of the substrate (abs; [0014]-[0015]; [0053]; [0056]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]-[0065]; [0070]; [0073]; fig 3A-5B; clm 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads, wherein the one or more OVJP print bars comprise a total number of the one or more OVJP print heads sufficient to deposit material over not more than 50% of the substrate in the OVJP system of Forrest, because Quinn teaches the use of one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads wherein the one or more OVJP print bars comprise a total number of the one or more OVJP print heads sufficient to deposit material over not more than 50% of the substrate so that the one or more OVJP print heads can be positioned relative to the substrate independently of each other allowing a more consistent head-to-substrate distance being maintained even for substrates that are not uniformly planar (abs; [0056]) and multiplexing print heads to form print bars that span the width of the substrate allows all rows of pixels to be concurrent ([0053]).
As regards to claim 12, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein an angle of each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) relative to the substrate ([0099]; fig 7) and a position of each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) in a dimension perpendicular to the primary direction of motion of the float table (motorized x-y motion stage) is independently controllable (motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]).
As regards to claim 13, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), further comprising a sensor (displacement sensor & height sensor) arranged and configured to determine a relative position of the substrate ([0099]; fig 7) below the OVJP print heads (310) ([0100]-[0101]; [0128]; [0131]-[0132]; [0136]; [0150]-[0151]; [0151]; [0153]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; fig 14 & 18), however Forrest does not disclose one or more OVJP print bars.
Quinn discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 3A-5B; clm 1), comprising one or more OVJP print bars (501) (abs; [0053]; [0056]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; [0070]; [0073]; fig 3A-5B; clm 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more OVJP print bars in the OVJP system of Forrest, because Quinn teaches the use of one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads that can be positioned relative to the substrate independently of each other allows a more consistent head-to-substrate distance being maintained even for substrates that are not uniformly planar (abs; [0056]) and multiplexing print heads to form print bars that span the width of the substrate allows all rows of pixels to be concurrent ([0053]).
As regards to claim 14, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), further comprising a controller ([0132]; [0148]) arranged and configured to adjust a position and/or an angle of each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) based on data obtained by the sensor (displacement sensor & height sensor) ([0100]-[0101]; [0128]; [0131]-[0132]; [0136]; [0148]; [0150]-[0151]; [0151]; [0153]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; fig 14 & 18).
As regards to claim 15, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) comprises a material source chamber (320) integrally connected to each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) ([0088]; fig 3).
As regards to claim 17, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein at least one of the plurality of apertures in each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) comprises a delivery aperture having a minimum length that can be measured in mm ([0061]; [0101]), however Forrest does not disclose 2mm.
Although Forrest does not explicitly disclose the claimed minimum length, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Forrest to have the minimum length recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the minimum length (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the minimum length.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 18, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), further comprising a manifold (330) hermetically sealed to the one or more OVJP print heads (310) to provide source materials to the one or more OVJP print heads (310) ([0088]; [0096]; fig 3-6).
As regards to claim 33, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), wherein the float table (motorized x-y motion stage) is movable through a distance of at least W in each of the two horizontal dimensions (motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzles; and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) in a plane perpendicular to the primary vertical direction during operation of the OVJP system ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]), however Forrest does not disclose 5W.
Although Forrest does not explicitly disclose the claimed movable spacing, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Forrest to have the movable spacing recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the movable spacing (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the movable spacing.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
6. Claim 16 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest and Quinn as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Quinn et al. (US 2022/0352467 A1) hereinafter Quinn ‘467 (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Forrest are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 16, Forrest discloses an OVJP system (abs; fig 3 & 18; clm 18), and each of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) ([0088]-[0090]; [0092]-[0094]; [0099]-[0101]; fig 3-8; clm 18), Quinn discloses the one or more OVJP print bars (abs; [0053]; [0056]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; [0070]; [0073]; fig 3A-5B; clm 1), however the combination of Forrest and Quinn does not disclose a cooled particle filter arranged and configured to remove organic material from a flow of material before the flow of material is removed via one or more exhausts.
Quinn ‘467 discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) system (abs; fig 4-6E; clm 1), comprising a cooled particle filter arranged and configured to remove organic material from a flow of material before the flow of material is removed via one or more exhausts ([0017); [0076]; fig 6A-6E). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cooled particle filter arranged and configured to remove organic material from a flow of material before the flow of material is removed via one or more exhausts in the OVJP system of modified Forrest, because Quinn ‘467 teaches the use of a cooled particle filter arranged and configured to remove organic material from a flow of material before the flow of material is removed via one or more exhausts to trap material for removal or re-use ([0076]), although the combination of Forrest and Quinn does not explicitly disclose the claimed filter configuration, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Forrest and Quinn to have the filter configuration recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the filter to remove organic material from a flow of material below the one or more OVJP print bars, since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the float table is movable through a distance of at least Win each of two horizontal dimensions, where W is defined as the distance across which the plurality of apertures of each OVJP print head are disposed. Similar features have been recited in claim 1 as previously presented and in claims 5 and 33.
The Office Action alleges that Forrest discloses these features because Forrest discloses that a "motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzles." Office Action, pp. 9-11. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
With respect to claim 1, even presuming arguendo that the correspondence of features recited in the claim with Forrest's device is accurate, Forrest does not disclose that the "x-y motion stage" is movable across a distance 5 times the distance across the apertures of the OVJP print head. Forrest does not directly disclose the distance across which the "plurality of nozzles 415" (identified as the recited "plurality of apertures" by the Office Action) are disposed, nor a minimum movement distance of the "x-y motion stage" (identified as corresponding to the recited "float table"). However, Forrest shows examples and data for a "20 mm" nozzle. See Fig. 12, 0121. The cited portion of Forrest also indicates that the x-y motion stage can be moved "parallel to line orientation" using a vacuum prepared Aerotech ATS-50 stage. 0149. This stage allows for a total travel distance of 50 mm, as shown in the specifications sheet submitted herewith for the Examiner's convenience. Accordingly, at most, Forrest discloses an x-y motion stage that is movable through a maximum distance of 2.5 times the distance across which the alleged "apertures" are arranged in one direction, and fails to disclose a float table (or x-y motion stage) that is movable across a distance of at least the width of the aperture region in each of two horizontal dimensions as recited in claim 1.
Further, Forrest is directed to a particular OVJP print head and mounting apparatus, as shown in Figure 3. See, e.g., 0088-90. Although Forrest describes movement of the substrate generally "to draw patterned organic films using OVJP" ( 0148), nothing in Forrest links the range of movement of the substrate to the total distance across which a plurality of apertures in each of one or more OVJP print heads, nor would one of skill in the art have any reason to make such a modification to the x-y stage based on Forrest's disclosure. For at least this additional reason, claim 1 is not rendered obvious by Forrest, whether considered alone or in combination with other references of record.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 33, even presuming arguendo that Forrest discloses or suggests an x-y stage that allows movement across a full distance Win two directions as alleged in the Office Action (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant respectfully submits that nothing in Forrest discloses or suggest a stage that allows movement across a distance of 5 W or 10 W as recited in claims 5 and 33, nor does Forrest suggest any link between the distance through which the float table (or x-y stage) can be moved, and the edge distance of the substrate. For at least this additional reason, these claims are also not obvious over Forrest and other references of record, whether considered alone or in combination.
(b) Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 and all claims dependent therefrom are not obvious based on the references of record as applied by the Office Action, whether considered alone or in any reasonable combination.
8. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) As already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, Forrest discloses one or more OVJP print heads (310) configured to eject material substantially in a primary vertical direction toward a substrate ([0099]; fig 7), each OVJP print head (310) of the one or more OVJP print heads (310) comprising a plurality of apertures (415) disposed across a horizontal distance (([0099]; fig 3-4, 7) on a surface of the print head (310) facing the substrate ([0099]; fig 7) ([0088]-[0090]; [0092]-[0094]; [0099]-[0101]; fig 3-8; clm 18); and a float table (motorized x-y motion stage) configured to hold the substrate ([0099]; fig 7) below the one or more OVJP print heads (310), wherein the float table (motorized x-y motion stage) is movable through a distance of at least W in each of two horizontal dimensions in a plane perpendicular to the primary vertical direction during operation of the OVJP system (motorized x-y motion stage is provided to move the substrate relative to the nozzle array in order to draw patterned films, i.e. implicitly through a distance at least matching the dimensions of the nozzles; and with a motorized z adjustment is further provided for height control and equipped with alignment optics and height sensor to determine and adjust the position of the substrate and/or the print head) ([0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0158]-[0159]; [0163]); however Forrest does not disclose one or more OVJP print bars, each comprising one or more OVJP print heads.
Further, Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the breadth of the currently amended claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., movable across a distance 5 times the distance across the apertures of the OVJP print head) is not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Even further, claim 1 recites “a horizontal distance W on a surface of the each OVJP print head” and “a distance of at least W in each of two horizontal dimensions in a plane perpendicular to the primary vertical direction” which as recited are two distinct arbitrary distances. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As acknowledged by Applicant, “Forrest shows examples and data for a "20 mm" nozzle. See Fig. 12, 0121. The cited portion of Forrest also indicates that the x-y motion stage can be moved "parallel to line orientation" using a vacuum prepared Aerotech ATS-50 stage. 0149. This stage allows for a total travel distance of 50 mm, as shown in the specifications sheet submitted herewith for the Examiner's convenience. Accordingly, at most, Forrest discloses an x-y motion stage that is movable through a maximum distance of 2.5 times the distance across which the alleged "apertures" are arranged in one direction.” The “specifications sheet” does not appear to be submitted herewith. In view of claim 1 reciting “a horizontal distance W on a surface of the each OVJP print head” and “a distance of at least W in each of two horizontal dimensions in a plane perpendicular to the primary vertical direction” which as recited are two distinct arbitrary distances, Examiner respectfully contends “stage allows for a total travel distance of 50 mm… an x-y motion stage that is movable through a maximum distance of 2.5 times the distance across…” would indeed satisfy the distances of “W”, “W”, “5W” & “10W” depending on the chosen/defined arbitrary distance.
Also, Forrest does not explicitly disclose the claimed movable spacing of 5W or 10W, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Forrest to have the movable spacing recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the movable spacing (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the movable spacing.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claims 4-6, 8-10, 12-18 & 33 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717