DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim requires a “first side” but it appears it should be “first surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 10-12, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (2010/0025237).
Kim teaches a deposition device comprising:
- a magnet part 130 with magnets 135 per Figs. 1 and 2 and related text,
- a substrate support facing the magnet part, see support 140, that supports substrate 150, the support having patterns, see patterns protruding from 140, and
- each of the patterns corresponds to a space between adjacent magnets as depicted.
Regarding claims 2-4, the magnets and patterns are depicted as in a first direction and extending in a second direction, wherein the centers align.
Regarding claim 7, the first side of the plate faces the magnet part.
Regarding claim 10, the support as depicted is between the magnet part and substrate.
Regarding claim 11, the pitch of the magnets is the same as the patterns.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings include deposition mask 160 placed in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings include all elements of the claim, wherein the device is shown per Fig. 1 including the noted magnetic part, and the substrate support as per above includes the plate 140 with the first surface having patterns and facing the magnet part.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, the patterns and magnets extend in the claimed directions with the centers aligned as depicted.
Regarding claim 19, the substrate 160 is at the second side with the support being between the magnet part and substrate.
Regarding claim 20, all elements of the claim are taught as per claims 1, 15 and 19 above – the second surface supports the substrate as noted. In regard to the “distort a magnetic force”, that is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). In this case, the structure of the prior art and instant claimed subject matter is the same and therefore the prior art would be capable of the same distortion of the magnetic force of the magnet part.
Claims 1-3, 6, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (2015/0056370).
Lee teaches a deposition device comprising:
- a magnet part 30 with magnets 31 per Figs. 1 and 2 and related text,
- a substrate support facing the magnet part, see support including 20 and 21, that supports substrate 10, the support having patterns 20 and
- each of the patterns corresponds to the magnets as depicted.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the magnets and patterns are disposed in the same direction and as depicted extend into and out of the page.
Regarding claim 6, the first surface of the support plate faces the substrate.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, the support plate includes non-magnetic material and the patterns are magnetic [0034] (in order to be pulled towards plate 30).
Regarding claim 15, the teachings include all elements of the claim, wherein the device is shown per Fig. 1 including the noted magnetic part, and the substrate support as per above includes the plate with the first surface having patterns and facing the magnet part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings do not specifically include the thickness of the patterns as claimed, but as per the limitations of claim 8, MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. a change or selection of size and/or shape is obvious without a showing of criticality. Kim does not specifically teach the dimensions, but to modify would have been obvious based on the selectivity of size and shape and the lack of showing any criticality.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings do not include a refrigerant in the support, but examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to include refrigerant in supports or other chamber parts in order to control temperature.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Lee as above include the patterns and magnets, but they are not specifically aligned as claimed. Per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. above and also 2144.04 VI. C. rearrangement of parts, to modify the position of the patterns with the center of the magnets would have been obvious. There is no criticality in the instant specification and no specific alignment required as per Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights