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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim foreign benefit based on JP2022-150502 filed on 09/21/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“depositing the second organic material on each of a plurality of crystal oscillators included in a film thickness measurement device facing the second nozzle by emitting the second organic material from first and second nozzles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“depositing the second organic material on each of a plurality of crystal oscillators included in a film thickness measurement device facing a second nozzle by emitting the second organic material from a first nozzle and the second nozzle”.
Claim 3 recites:
“after the second organic material is deposited on all of the crystal oscillators”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“after the second organic material is deposited on all of the plurality of crystal oscillators”.
Claim 4 recites:
“wherein the processing substrate is conveyed so as to face the first nozzle in a state where at least one of the crystal oscillators faces the second nozzle, and a thickness of the second organic material deposited on the processing substrate is measured based on a frequency of the crystal oscillator facing the second nozzle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites:
“wherein the crystal oscillators are arranged in a circumferential direction on a holder formed into a shape of a circular disk, and after the second organic material deposited on the crystal oscillator facing the second nozzle reaches a predetermined thickness, the holder rotates, and another one of the crystal oscillators faces the second nozzle.”
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites:
“deposit the second organic material on each of the crystal oscillators, and convey the processing substrate along the conveyance path after the second organic material is deposited on all of the crystal oscillators”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“deposit the second organic material on each of the plurality of crystal oscillators, and convey the processing substrate along the conveyance path after the second organic material is deposited on all of the plurality of crystal oscillators”.
Claim 13 recites:
“wherein the film thickness measurement device is configured to measure a thickness of the second organic material deposited on the processing substrate based on a frequency of the crystal oscillator facing the second nozzle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“wherein the film thickness measurement device is configured to measure a thickness of the second organic material deposited on the processing substrate based on a frequency of the plurality of crystal oscillators facing the second nozzle”.
Claim 14 recites:
“the holder is configured to rotate after the second organic material deposited on the crystal oscillator facing the second nozzle reaches a predetermined thickness, and another one of the crystal oscillators faces the second nozzle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“the holder is configured to rotate after the second organic material deposited on the plurality of crystal oscillators facing the second nozzle reaches a predetermined thickness, and another one of the plurality of crystal oscillators faces the second nozzle”.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-15 are allowed over prior art provided the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 1, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20230219114 A1 to Takenaka) substantially teach(es) some of limitations in claim 1 as indicated below:
preparing a processing substrate (10 – Fig. 3 – [0046]) by forming a lower electrode (LE) above a substrate, forming a rib (5) comprising an aperture (AP – [0050]) which overlaps the lower electrode, and forming a partition (6 – [0049]) including a lower portion (61) located on the rib (5) and an upper portion (62) located on the lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the lower portion;
forming an organic layer (OR Fig. 4 – [0067]) on the lower electrode in the aperture;
forming an upper electrode (UE – Fig. 4) on the organic layer, but not the limitations of “forming a first transparent layer on the upper electrode by depositing a first organic material on the processing substrate in which the upper electrode is formed; forming a second transparent layer on the first transparent layer by depositing a second organic material having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the first organic material on the processing substrate in which the first transparent layer is formed; and depositing the second organic material on each of a plurality of crystal oscillators included in a film thickness measurement device facing the second nozzle by emitting the second organic material from first and second nozzles of an evaporation source before forming the second transparent layer” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim 1 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, similar to claim 1, Takenaka teaches some of the limitations of claim 10, but not the limitations of “a film thickness measurement device including a plurality of crystal oscillators, the first nozzle faces a conveyance path of the processing substrate in which the first transparent layer is formed, the second nozzle faces the film thickness measurement device, and the fourth evaporation portion is configured to emit the second organic material from the first nozzle and the second nozzle before the second transparent layer is formed, deposit the second organic material on each of the crystal oscillators, and convey the processing substrate along the conveyance path after the second organic material is deposited on all of the crystal oscillators” as recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claim 10 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 11-15, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898