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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on August 7, 2026 was received. The specification was amended. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued May 7, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2011/0146575) on claims 1-11 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Choi et al. discloses an evaporation apparatus for manufacturing a display device including an evaporation source (130) which has nozzles (134) that spray the deposition material, a crucible (132) having a plurality of frame walls such that it includes a first frame defining a trench therein arranged in a lengthwise direction along the crucible (132) walls (see figure 2A), and where each nozzle, which can be considered to be arranged within the trench, includes a plurality of angle limiting walls which extend from the base of the nozzle section (134) up above the nozzle opening to an inclined section which is a diagonal slit provided in the angle limiting wall, such that nozzle walls can be considered an angle limiting plate, as it is meant to limit the angle of deposition spray (pars. 43-44, 52-54, figures 2-3). The angle limiting walls can be considered separate and therefore spaced apart from the actual nozzle openings, and clearly surrounding the nozzle openings themselves (see annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Choi et al. shows that the trench defined by the crucible walls (132) extends through a thickness of the crucible (132) such that it can be considered to pass through the wall in its thickness direction (see figure 2A).
Regarding claim 3: Choi et al. shows that the nozzle (134a) walls have a smaller thickness (t) at the top end, such that the walls of the crucible (132) are thicker than the smaller thickness at the top of the slit region of the nozzle (134a) walls (figures 2-3).
Regarding claims 4-6: Choi et al. discloses that the nozzle (134a) wall which forms the angle limiting plate has diagonal slits in each wall section, totaling four slits, and where the slits extend from what can be considered a central or side portion towards a side or central portion, each of the slits can be considered to be on a different surface of the nozzle (134a) wall and each slit approaches its neighboring surface of the nozzle (134a) wall (par. 54, 58-59, figure 3).
Regarding claim 7: Choi et al. discloses that the slits are all inclined diagonally with respect to a thickness of the nozzle (134a) wall, such that they pass through it in a diagonal direction (figure 3).
Regarding claim 8: Choi et al. discloses that the crucible (132) has two opposing sidewalls, each of which can be considered a first frame and a second frame, each defining the elongated trench between them, and where multiple nozzles (134a) are provided in the device (130) such that one of the other nozzles can be the second angle limiting plate arranged in the trench of the second wall of the crucible (132), which has the same inclined slit design as the other nozzle (134a) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9: Choi et al. shows that the nozzle (134a) walls are linear shaped in a certain direction (i.e. see figure 3), and that the evaporation source (130) is provided in plurality, delineated by partitions (133) and the nozzles (134a) corresponding to each partition (133) which are arranged in the lengthwise direction of the crucible (132) walls and the evaporation nozzle (134a) openings all arranged between the first and second angle limiting plates (nozzle walls) (par. 48-53, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 10: Choi et al. discloses the crucible (132) as discussed above, arranged below the nozzles (134), heaters (135) adjacent to the crucible (132), and a nozzle section (134) which is a cover arranged on the crucible (132) and defining an opening overlapping the nozzles (134a) (pars. 48-50, figure 2).
Regarding claim 11: Choi et al. discloses that the nozzle section (134) which is the cover is spaced apart from the nozzle openings (134a) (see figures 2-3).
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.
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 1-11 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0035920).
Regarding claim 1: Choi et al. discloses an evaporation apparatus for manufacturing a display device including an evaporation source (130) which has nozzles (134) that spray the deposition material, a crucible (132) having a plurality of frame walls such that it includes a first frame defining a trench therein arranged in a lengthwise direction along the crucible (132) walls (see figure 2A), and where each nozzle, which can be considered to be arranged within the trench, includes a plurality of angle limiting walls which extend from the base of the nozzle section (134) up above the nozzle opening to an inclined section which is a diagonal slit provided in the angle limiting wall, such that nozzle walls can be considered an angle limiting plate, as it is meant to limit the angle of deposition spray (pars. 43-44, 52-54, figures 2-3). Choi et al. describes the walls as being part of the nozzles (134a), and when they are considered as being part of the nozzle Choi et al. fails to teach that they are spaced apart from the nozzle.
However, Han et al. discloses a similar display manufacturing apparatus (100) in which the nozzle units (140, 240, 340, 440, 540, 640, 730, 830, 930) are provided with similar angle restriction units (161, 261, 361, 461, 561, 661, 761, 861, 961) which are angle limiting plates, all spaced apart from their respective nozzles (141a, 141b, etc.) of the nozzle units (e.g. pars. 104-110, figures 2-15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space apart the angle restriction units from the nozzles like those of Han et al. instead of being part of the nozzle walls like in Choi et al. because Han et al. shows this to be a functionally equivalent mechanism for restricting nozzle spray angles for a device like this (see figures 2-15), and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06) and using a known element to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), and simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04). In the above combination the shape of the walls, i.e. the diagonal slits, would not be changed, just the location of the walls relative to the nozzle openings.
Regarding claim 2: Choi et al. shows that the trench defined by the crucible walls (132) extends through a thickness of the crucible (132) such that it can be considered to pass through the wall in its thickness direction (see figure 2A).
Regarding claim 3: Choi et al. shows that the nozzle (134a) walls have a smaller thickness (t) at the top end, such that the walls of the crucible (132) are thicker than the smaller thickness at the top of the slit region of the nozzle (134a) walls (figures 2-3).
Regarding claims 4-6: Choi et al. discloses that the nozzle (134a) wall which forms the angle limiting plate has diagonal slits in each wall section, totaling four slits, and where the slits extend from what can be considered a central or side portion towards a side or central portion, each of the slits can be considered to be on a different surface of the nozzle (134a) wall and each slit approaches its neighboring surface of the nozzle (134a) wall (par. 54, 58-59, figure 3).
Regarding claim 7: Choi et al. discloses that the slits are all inclined diagonally with respect to a thickness of the nozzle (134a) wall, such that they pass through it in a diagonal direction (figure 3).
Regarding claim 8: Choi et al. discloses that the crucible (132) has two opposing sidewalls, each of which can be considered a first frame and a second frame, each defining the elongated trench between them, and where multiple nozzles (134a) are provided in the device (130) such that one of the other nozzles can be the second angle limiting plate arranged in the trench of the second wall of the crucible (132), which has the same inclined slit design as the other nozzle (134a) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9: Choi et al. shows that the nozzle (134a) walls are linear shaped in a certain direction (i.e. see figure 3), and that the evaporation source (130) is provided in plurality, delineated by partitions (133) and the nozzles (134a) corresponding to each partition (133) which are arranged in the lengthwise direction of the crucible (132) walls and the evaporation nozzle (134a) openings all arranged between the first and second angle limiting plates (nozzle walls) (par. 48-53, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 10: Choi et al. discloses the crucible (132) as discussed above, arranged below the nozzles (134), heaters (135) adjacent to the crucible (132), and a nozzle section (134) which is a cover arranged on the crucible (132) and defining an opening overlapping the nozzles (134a) (pars. 48-50, figure 2).
Regarding claim 11: Choi et al. discloses that the nozzle section (134) which is the cover is spaced apart from the nozzle openings (134a) (see figures 2-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Choi et al. does not teach the angle limiting plate being spaced apart from the nozzles, or being within the trench.
In response:
Applicant is reading the claims far too narrowly. Applicant is reminded that 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). In this case, the phrase “spaced apart” is extremely broad, and the claimed “nozzle” can simply be understood as the opening at the bottom of where the walls begin, such that the nozzle walls are indeed spaced apart from this opening, while they surround the opening. Further, the phrase “in the trench” is broad enough to allow for the bottoms of the nozzle to extent from within the trench, which figure 2B of Choi et al. shows is still the case. Applicant is encouraged to use much more specific language to more specifically claim the positional relationships of each of the claimed elements, as the claims are currently extremely broad in that respect.
Additionally, an alternative 103 rejection has now been added which Applicant’s arguments do not refer to, where Han et al. does teach spacing these angle limiting walls apart from the nozzles as claimed.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/22/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights