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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of Group I and Species A in the replies filed on 16 December 2025 and 8 January 2026 were previously acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned replies.
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) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0338413 to Shiripov et al.
Regarding claim 1: Shiripov et al. disclose a plurality of structural elements constituting an evaporation device, as illustrated in Figs. 2-4, substantially as claimed, the evaporation device comprising: a first chamber group (see annotated figure below) comprising a plurality of evaporation chambers (3) which are arranged in line in a first conveyance direction in which a processing substrate is conveyed; a second chamber group (see annotated figure below) comprising a plurality of evaporation chambers (3) which are arranged in line in a second conveyance direction which is an opposite direction of the first conveyance direction; a first rotation chamber (see annotated figure below) which is connected (via loading chamber and load lock chambers) to a first evaporation chamber (“1EC”, see annotated figure below) located at a most upstream position (relative to other evaporation chambers of the first chamber group) in the first conveyance direction in the first chamber group and a second evaporation chamber (“2EC”, see annotated figure below) located at a most downstream position (relative to other evaporation chambers of the second chamber group) in the second conveyance direction in the second chamber group, and rotates the processing substrate carried out of the second evaporation chamber to carry the processing substrate into the first evaporation chamber; a second rotation chamber (see annotated figure below) which is connected to a third evaporation chamber (“3EC”, see annotated figure below) located at a most downstream position (relative to other evaporation chambers of the first chamber group) in the first conveyance direction in the first chamber group and a fourth evaporation chamber (“4EC”, see annotated figure below) located at a most upstream position (relative to other evaporation chambers of the second chamber group) in the second conveyance direction in the second chamber group, and rotates the processing substrate carried out of the third evaporation chamber to carry the processing substrate to the fourth evaporation chamber.
Note: claim 1 includes many limitations drawn to intended uses of the claimed invention (e.g. with respect to the manipulation of the substrate through the evaporation device) of which Shiripov et al. is considered capable of executing, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
PNG
media_image1.png
266
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, while Shiripov et al. do disclose a substrate attachment/detachment chamber (24 and 25) connected to the first rotation chamber, Shiripov et al. fail to disclose the first rotation chamber is positioned between (i) the first evaporation chamber and the second evaporation chamber and (ii) the substrate attachment/detachment chamber.
First, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Next, Examiner notes prior art reference Manz et al., which provides various arrangements of a substrate processing apparatus for evaporation, including one in Fig. 7, wherein a first rotation chamber (390) is positioned between (i) the first evaporation chamber (303) and the second evaporation chamber (304) and (ii) a substrate attachment/detachment chamber (305), wherein the arrangements and rearrangements set forth provide for, inter alia, a substrate processing apparatus for evaporation having a small space requirement with substantially increased (or optimized) throughput and efficiency (see, e.g., paras. 11-24, 85-86).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a rearrangement of Shiripov et al. including the first rotation chamber is positioned between (i) the first evaporation chamber and the second evaporation chamber and (ii) the substrate attachment/detachment chamber as an option for providing a substrate processing apparatus for evaporation having a small space requirement with substantially increased (or optimized) throughput and efficiency as taught by Manz et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Shiripov et al., both Shiripov et al. and Manz et al., the substrate attachment/detachment chamber (8 and 305, respectively) is configured to attach the processing substrate carried into the substrate attachment/detachment chamber to a carrier (8 and 70, respectively), carry the carrier to the first rotation chamber, and detach the processing substrate from the carrier carried out of the first rotation chamber. Regarding intended use, see above.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Shiripov et al., Shiripov et al. further discloses a first conveyance rail (11) extending from the first evaporation chamber to the third evaporation chamber and configured to convey the carrier; and a second conveyance rail (11) extending from the second evaporation chamber to the fourth evaporation chamber and configured to convey the substrate.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Shiripov et al., which is drawn to processing materials, the resulting layer formed and/or the article worked upon during an intended use of the claimed device, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiripov et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 9 above further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0280840 to Sonoda et al.
Modified Shiripov et al. disclose the device substantially as claimed and as described above.
Additionally, with respect to claim 4, in Shiripov et al., each of the evaporation chambers comprises an evaporation source (4) configured to emit a material.
However, Shiripov et al. fail to explicitly disclose the evaporation source having a discharge port and/or each of the evaporation chambers also comprises a partition plate which partitions the evaporation chamber into a first space in which the evaporation source is accommodated and a second space in which the process substrate is conveyed, the first conveyance rail is provided in the second space of each of the evaporation chambers including the first evaporation chamber and the third evaporation chamber, the second conveyance rail is provided in the second space of each of the evaporation chambers including the second evaporation chamber and the fourth evaporation chamber, the partition plate comprises an opening facing the evaporation source, and the evaporation source of each of the evaporation chambers is configured such that the discharge port faces the first space in a mode in which the emitted material is not deposited on the processing substrate, and the discharge port face the second space in a mode in which the emitted material is deposited on the processing substrate.
Sonoda discloses an evaporation chamber including an evaporation source (80) having a discharge port (one of 81a, or 81b or 81c); and a partition plate (Fig. 2, 84) which partitions the evaporation chamber into a first space (e.g., above 84) in which an evaporation source (80) is accommodated and a second space (e.g., below 84) in which a process substrate (70) is conveyed, the partition plate comprises an opening (84a) facing the evaporation source, and the evaporation source of each of the evaporation chambers is configured such that the discharge port faces the first space in a mode in which the emitted material is not deposited on the processing substrate from the selected discharge port, and the discharge port faces the second space in a mode in which the emitted material is deposited on the processing substrate for the purpose of allowing the distribution amount to be changed (see, e.g., abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Shiripov et al. the evaporation source having a discharge port and each of the evaporation chambers also comprises a partition plate which partitions the evaporation chamber into a first space in which the evaporation source is accommodated and a second space in which the process substrate is conveyed, the first conveyance rail is provided in the second space of each of the evaporation chambers including the first evaporation chamber and the third evaporation chamber, the second conveyance rail is provided in the second space of each of the evaporation chambers including the second evaporation chamber and the fourth evaporation chamber, the partition plate comprises an opening facing the evaporation source, and the evaporation source of each of the evaporation chambers is configured such that the discharge port faces the first space in a mode in which the emitted material is not deposited on the processing substrate from the discharge port , and the discharge port faces the second space in a mode in which the emitted material is deposited on the processing substrate using the discharge port in order to allow a deposition amount to be changed as taught by Sonoda et al.
With respect to claims 5-8, which are drawn to processing materials, the resulting layer formed and/or the article worked upon during an intended use of the claimed device, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-2 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly relied upon prior art reference, Manz et al., which is incorporated into the modified rejections presented above, addresses the arrangement of the evaporation device as now claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2009/02266; USP Pub. 20110281038; DE 10 205 168; and KR 10-2018-0083259 disclose in-line coating devices with rotation chambers. USP Pub. No. 2011/0268893 disclose a rotating evaporation source.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights