DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on May 4, 2026 was received. Claims 12, 16-17, 19 and 22 were amended. Claims 1-8 and 15 remain withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued February 5, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 4, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi on claims 12-14 are withdrawn because independent claim 12 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and DePalma are withdrawn because independent claim 12 has been amended.
Claims 12-14 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20150118393, provided translations are cited below) and further in view of DePalma (US 2019/0211440).
In regards to claims 12 and 16, Choi teaches a deposition apparatus (100, steam distribution device) comprising:
a distribution pipe (120, steam distribution channel) comprising a cavity (inherently provided by interior of the distribution pipe) (fig. 2-5; para. 33, 39);
a plurality of nozzles (150, emission nozzles) fluidly coupled to each other by the cavity of the distribution pipe, and emits an evaporated deposition material (material vapor flow) out of the cavity (fig. 2-5; para. 39-43, 47); and
a plurality of discharge ports (131a, 132a, gas outlets) provide a gas flow superposed on the evaporated deposition material (fig. 2-5; para. 44-46).
Choi further teaches gas pipes (131/132) that provide the gas flow to the plurality of discharge ports (131a, 132a, gas outlets), where the flow of gas is controlled to guide (control) the evaporated deposition material to the predetermined area of the substrate (2) (control spatial distribution of material vapor flow) (fig. 3-5; para. 45-48, 54-59).
Choi does not explicitly teach a regulator configured to, based on a spatial distribution of the material vapor flow, spatially distribute the gas flow over the plurality of gas outlets.
However, DePalma teaches a gas manifold (50) comprising a first gas manifold-50a and a second gas manifolds-50b arranged on opposed sides of the coating envelope (48), where the gas manifolds direct gas to the coating envelope (fig. 2; para. 28).
DePalma teaches a gas manifold-62 is near a crucible (44) and helps direct the stream/plume from the crucible to increase the deposition rate onto the substrate. DePalma teaches the gas manifolds are used to adjust and shape the vapor plume from the crucible (fig. 2; para. 29, 34).
DePalma teaches the gas manifolds are connected to metering valves (regulator) to provide a control of the flow gas, where the metering valves are controlled by a controller (C, control device) (fig. 2; para. 29, 35). DePalma teaches the gas flows are used to control deposition of volatilized coating material (24) onto a substrate (22) (para. 32, 34-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the metering valves and the controller of DePalma onto the gas pipes of Choi because DePalma teaches it allows for attaining a desired coating speed and desired coating composition (para. 34).
Specifically with regards to the claimed the control device determines an information representing a spatial distribution of the material vapor flow, as DePalma teaches the gas flows are controlled using metering valves to adjust and shape the vapor plume from the crucible (para. 32-34), the adjustments must be made based (spatial) information/data that has been provided to the controller.
In regards to claim 13, Choi and DePalma as discussed, where Choi teaches the plurality of nozzles (150, emission nozzles) arranged in series along a direction, and the plurality of discharge ports (131a, 132a, gas outlets) are arranged in series along the direction (fig. 3).
In regards to claim 14, Choi and DePalma as discussed, where Choi teaches the plurality of discharge ports (131a, 132a, gas outlets) are directed to an area to which the deposition material (material vapor flow) is emitted from the cavity (fig. 5; para. 48-50, 59).
In regards to claim 17, Choi and DePalma as discussed above, where DePalma teaches an instance to provide a less dense plume (first specification) by adjusting the flow of gas from the gas manifolds (para. 33-34).
In regards to claim 18, Choi and DePalma as discussed above, where the prior art teaches the coating completed in a batch process, as a running/moving substrate is not provided (see Choi-fig. 1-2, DePalma-fig. 2; para. 30). Therefore, when the coating process is completed (time-dependent function), the gas flows are stopped by closing of the metering valves that are controlled by the controller.
In regards to claim 19, Choi and DePalma as discussed above, where DePalma teaches an instance to provide a denser plume (second specification) by adjusting the flow of gas from the gas manifolds (para. 33-34).
In regards to claims 20 and 21, Choi and DePalma as discussed above, where Choi teaches inert gas such as Argon (Ar) (para. 25, 44, 46) and DePalma teaches the use of Argon (Ar) gas (para. 29, 34).
In regards to claims 22-23, Choi and DePalma as discussed above, where DePalma teaches the control of the flow gas by the metering valves (regulator) (para. 33-34) and is capable of adjusting gas flows to provide the material vapor flow with a first spatial distribution, the gas flow being configured to transform the first spatial distribution into a second spatial distribution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Office states that DePalma teaches gas manifolds that are used to adjust and shape the vapor plume of material from the crucible, where metering valves provide for a controlled gas flow out of the manifolds. OA at 5 (citing DePalma at Fig. 2 and [0029], [0030]. However, this does not teach the relationship as claimed, where the regulator does arbitrary regulate the gas flow but rather the spatial distribution over the gas outlets is based on the spatial distribution of the material vapor flow. So, while DePalma may disclose a control device (C) for controlling the flow of gas, DePalma is silent as to whether it is based on any parameters and certainly not that the flow of gas varies over the gas outlets and that its spatial distribution is based on the spatial distribution of the material vapor flow.
DePalma meters the gas flow into manifold(s) but the claims require control of the spatial distribution of gas over plural gas outlets. DePalma never suggests that the gas flow is spatially distributed over the gas outlets based on the spatial distribution of the material vapor flow, as claimed.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
DePalma does teach the gas flows are controlled based on the coating deposition to be applied to the substrate (para. 32-34). Therefore the parameter would be applying coating deposition. An example of spatial distribution would be preventing or allowing coating onto the substrate.
There is no evidence that the claimed regulator is capable of obtaining the claimed spatial distribution of the material vapor flow, and the configuration is essentially is a valve.
Also, there is no evidence that the controller and metering valves of DePalma incorporated onto gas pipes and discharge ports of Choi would be unable to carry out the claimed process of based on a spatial distribution of the material vapor flow, spatially distribute the gas flow over the plurality of gas outlets. Since there is no evidence of a structural difference between the apparatus of the cited prior art combination and the claimed invention, then the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed operation.
DePalma does teach the metering valves that is structurally equivalent to the claimed regulator. The claim is silent to a variation in gas flows from different gas outlets. It is noted the application’s specification make clear the claimed function could be done by one gas flow regulator/valve (see para. 97), which is taught by DePalma. Therefore the metering valves of DePalma meets the structural limitation of the claimed regulator.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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 Yuan can be reached at 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights