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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/13/26 has been entered.
Official Notice
In the prior office action, Official Notice was taken in the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 14, & 17.
Official notice was taken that:
Claim 2 - it is well known to incorporate mixing components into the coating storage and use ultrasonic devices to mix which would predictably maintain the desired mixing of the coating material.
Claim 3 - 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.
Claim 8 - 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.
Claim 14 - 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.
Claim 17 - suction is a known means for coupling.
Applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice in the reply filed on 9/9/2011. Thus, the facts are taken as admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the assertion. See MPEP 2144.03 [R-6] (C).
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 1-5, 7-15, 17, 19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent 6,045,671; hereafter ‘671) in view of Dante et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0093547; hereafter ‘547) and Wada et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0252673; hereafter ‘673).
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.
‘671 teaches using an inkjet dispenser with a plurality of nozzles (col. 30, lines 10-30).
‘671 does not teach a specific multi-nozzle inkjet printer.
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).
And ‘673, which is directed towards multi-nozzle inkjet printing apparatus (title) teaches shifting the print head having a plurality of nozzles in a direction in which the nozzles are arranged, so as to have overlapping portions in a direction orthogonal to the nozzle arranging direction and operation of said inkjet printer nozzles in the overlapping portions between the plurality of nozzle arrays on the basis of an angle between the nozzle array arranging direction and a direction orthogonal to the direction in which the print head moves relative to the print medium to prevent stripe-like density unevenness in a droplet portions when compared to a nozzle/printhead wherein the nozzles are not shifted (see abstract, Figs. 3, 11-13).
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 with the shifted orientation as disclosed in ‘673 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 and improved the coating process by avoiding stripe-like density unevenness in the coating.
I.e. the combination discloses a spray part comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to spray the solution downward, wherein each of the plurality of nozzles is configured to spray the solution at a spray 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.
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 use ultrasonic devices to mix 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 4: ‘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, wherein the plurality of nozzles are below the accommodation part (nozzles (116, 118, 120) and accommodation part ((210, 211, 208); see Fig. 2).
Claim 5: The plurality of nozzles are arranged along the first direction and the second direction (see Fig. 3, ‘673).
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 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 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 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘671.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of ‘671, ‘547, & ‘673 renders obvious an apparatus with the claimed components which is capable of performing moving the first and second mask as claimed during a spray coating process but does not teach a method of coating which reads on the controller language or that the apparatus has a controller “configured to, in a case where the first mask and the second mask move away from each other in the opposite directions, cause the solution to be sprayed sequentially from nozzles, among the plurality of nozzles, exposed between the first mask and the second mask”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘671 nor ‘671 in view of ‘547 teaches the amended claim 1; the Office agrees that the combination of ‘671 and ‘547 does not that the plurality of masks are disposed in overlap regions, the overlap 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 in conjunction with the spray part comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to spray the solution downward, wherein each of the plurality of nozzles is configured to spray the solution at a spray angle; however, as presented above, ‘673 teaches shifting the orientation of the spray head such that the movement of the nozzles is not orthogonal to the row of nozzles such that the nozzles overlap each other in the spray pattern and thus when combined with ‘671 & ‘547 render obvious the newly amended claim.
In regards to applicant’s argument that claim 20 is allowable; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the apparatus of ‘671 is capable of spraying as claimed while moving the masks as claimed, applicant is advised that claim 18 is allowable because of the additional “controller” language which provides for actively performing the steps which is more than configured to or capable of.
In regards to applicant’s argument that “a thickness of the reinforcing agent provided on a surface of the window is reduced gradually from a central portion of the window toward the sides of the window in the opposite directions” is not merely a change in shape or size but instead a comprehensive stress profile formed on the window surface; the Office does not find this argument convincing because as noted above, the apparatus of ‘671 is configured as claimed and capable of forming the structure as claimed, see Figs. 6-7(a)-(c) which provide for the sloped coating. Applicant is advised that “configured to” does not require that the desired structure be formed by the prior art apparatus but instead that the prior art apparatus is “capable of”.
Conclusion
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