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 .
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 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US Patent 6,045,671; hereafter ‘671).
Claim 1: ‘671 is directed towards a coating apparatus (apparatus) comprising:
a spray part configured to spray a solution (col. 5, lines 5-30; col. 21, lines 1-20; col. 28, line 45 – col. 30, line 65) downward (see Fig. 19);
a plurality of masks that are below the spray part and configured to move away from each other in opposite directions such that an opening between side surfaces of respective ones of the plurality of masks increases, wherein the side surfaces face each other and are configured to contact each other, and one of the opposite directions is a first direction (see Fig. 5 and col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 10; col. 6, lines 20-25; col. 16, line 30 – col. 17, line 65);
a storage part above the spray part, the storage part configured to store the solution and provide the solution to the spray part (see reservoir; Fig. 19);
a stage below the plurality of masks (the mask is between the stage and the spray part; col. 28, line 45 – col. 30, line 65);
wherein the spray part is configured to spray the solution, through the opening between the side surfaces of the plurality of masks, to a substrate on the stage (see Figs. 5 & 19 and col. 28, line 45 – col. 30, line 65; see discussion in col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 60).
It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P.Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
Claim 7: The plurality of masks comprises a first mask and a second mask that are arranged in the first direction and configured to move away from each other in the opposite directions (see Fig. 5 and col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 10; col. 6, lines 20-25; col. 16, line 30 – col. 17, line 65); and
the spray part is configured to spray the solution, while the first mask and the second mask move away from each other in the opposite directions, such that the solution passes between the first mask and the second mask, and is provided to the substrate on the stage (see Fig. 5 and col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 10; col. 6, lines 20-25; col. 16, line 30 – col. 17, line 65).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 8-15, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘671.
Claim 2: ‘671 does not teach disposing an ultrasonic wave-generating part on the outer wall of the storage part.
However, it is well known to incorporate mixing components into the coating storage and ultrasonic which would predictably maintain the desired mixing of the coating material.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of ‘671 such that an ultrasonic wave generating device is attached to the outer wall of the storage part because it is well recognized in the art to attach mixing aids on the storage parts and the use of said mixing aid would have predictably maintained the desired mixing of the coating material to produce a more uniform material coating.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to position said part as recited because it is prima facie obvious to rearrange parts.
Claim 3: ‘671 does not teach a stirrer disposed inside on the bottom of the storage device which rotates.
However, it is well known to incorporate mixing components into the coating storage and rotating stirrers are well recognized means for mixing which would predictably maintain the desired mixing of the coating material.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of ‘671 such that stirrer disposed inside on the bottom of the storage device which rotate because it is well recognized in the art to attach mixing aids on the storage parts and the use of said mixing aid would have predictably maintained the desired mixing of the coating material to produce a more uniform material coating.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to position said part as recited because it is prima facie obvious to rearrange parts.
Claim 8: ‘293 does not teach that the substrate stage comprises a heater capable of heating in a range of 150ºC to 180ºC.
It is well known in the art to incorporate a substrate heater in the substrate stage because controlling the temperature during deposition improves the quality of the films formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a heater into the substrate stage of ‘293 because controlling the temperature of a substrate is an art recognized improvement on deposition devices which would have predictably improved the coating formed.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 9-13: It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P.Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
Claim 14: ‘671 does not teach that the apparatus has a camera above the stage configured to capture an image.
However, it is known in the art to place a camera in an apparatus to observe the operation of the apparatus in real time to improve quality control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a camera in the apparatus because it would have predictably improved quality control.
Claim 15: ‘671 teaches supplying heat to the substrate (i.e. a heating chamber to heat the substrate; col. 35, lines 50-65).
Claim 17: ‘671 does not teach using suction parts as the coupling device.
However, suction is a known means for coupling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use suction devices as the specific coupling devices because suction devices are art recognized alternative coupling means which would have predictably produced the desired coupling.
‘671 does not explicitly teach that the coupling devices are above the first and second masks.
However, it is prima facie obvious to rearrange the parts of the apparatus.
Claim 18: ‘671 further discloses that the apparatus comprises a controller for controlling the movement of the masks (see claim 2) wherein the controller is configured to move one or more masks in one or more directions to vary the size, shape, and position of the opening (see claims 1-4) to form the desired shape on the substrate (col. 17, lines 35-65).
Claim 19: The apparatus further comprises a partition wall on an edge of the spray part, the partition wall extending towards the plurality of masks (see Fig. 19, #226 can be considered as part of the spray part and thus reads on the limitation).
Claim 20: ‘671 is directed towards an apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a spray part configured to spray a solution (col. 5, lines 5-30; col. 21, lines 1-20; col. 28, line 45 – col. 30, line 65) downward (see Fig. 19);
a first mask and a second mask that are below the spray part, the first and second mask configured to move away from each other in opposite directions such that an opening between a side surface and the first mask and a side surface of the second mask increases, wherein the side surface of the second mask faces the side surface of the first mask and is configured to contact the side surface of the first mask, and one of the opposite directions is a first direction (see Fig. 5 and col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 10; col. 6, lines 20-25; col. 16, line 30 – col. 17, line 65); and
a stage below the first and second masks (the mask is between the stage and the spray part; col. 28, line 45 – col. 30, line 65);
wherein the spray part is configured to spray the solution, while the first and second mask move in any direction to obtain the desired coating shape (see Figs. 5 & 19 and col. 28, line 45 – col. 30, line 65; see discussion in col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 60; claims 1-4).
‘671 does not explicitly teach the shape of the coating formed but does teach that the masks and the spray can be controlled to obtain the desired shape and changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04.
Thus it would have been obvious to control the movement of the masks during the spray as claimed because the movement of the masks is a result effective variable based on the desired shape and it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables to obtain the desired results.
It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P.Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
Claims 4-6 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘671 as applied above, and further in view of Dante et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0093547; hereafter ‘547).
Claim 4: ‘671 teaches using an inkjet dispenser with a plurality of nozzles (col. 30, lines 10-30).
However, ‘547, which is directed towards a inkjet printhead (title) discloses a printhead with an accommodation part that has a flat plate shape defined by the first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction, the accommodation plate configured to accommodate the solution provided from the storage part (see Fig. 2); and
a plurality of nozzles below the accommodation part (116, 118, & 120; Fig. 2), the plurality of nozzles configured to spray the solution (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the printhead disclosed in ‘547 as the particular inkjet nozzles configuration in the apparatus of ‘671 because it is an art recognized inkjet printhead which would have predictably been suitable as the particular inkjet nozzles called for in ‘671.
Claim 5: The plurality of nozzles are arranged along the first direction and the second direction (see Figs. 5A & 5B, ‘547).
Claim 6: Each of the plurality of nozzles is configured to spray the solution at a certain spray angle (the nozzles are present and thus they spray at a certain angle), and
the plurality of masks are disposed in overlap regions, the overlap regions being regions in which the solution sprayed from at least one nozzle from among the plurality of nozzles overlaps the solution sprayed from at least one other nozzle from among the plurality of nozzles in a plan view (‘671 teaches controlling the shape and size of the deposited coating by moving the masks and not the nozzles and thus reads on the limitation, claims 1-4, ‘671).
Claim 21: The accommodation part includes an inner space that is configured to accommodate the solution (chamber 114, Fig. 2; ¶ 17; ‘547), and
wherein the inner space of the accommodation part is in fluid communication with each of the plurality of nozzles (see Fig. 2, ‘547).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights