DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims require that the securing portion and detachment portions each are adjacent to “(blank) of the plurality of evaporation chambers”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponnekanti (2013/0171757).
Ponnekanti teaches a manufacturing device, see Figs. 1-2, comprising:
- a conveyance mechanism, see conveyors 123 and 221 which together comprise the conveyance system and 221 particularly convey substrates through the system (various process chambers), i.e. in a first direction [0047-48],
- in regard to the substrate, the teachings include substrates [0047-48], while the claim states that the system is “for conveying a processing substrate”, the clause is 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). In this case, the prior art teaches a substrate, the presence of and details (electrode, rib, etc.) of the substrate are the intended use and since the system of Ponnekanti are capable of carrying any such substrates, the limitation is met.
- pre- and post-processing portions connected to the respective up and downstream portions of the system, see 105 and 195,
- first-forth evaporation portions – Ponnekanti teaches any number of chambers 130-190, including deposition (PVD) chamber including evaporation chambers [0121], the use of the chambers for carrying out particular process steps (such as organic or transparent layers) is intended use as noted above and not limiting wherein the prior art system includes deposition and evaporation chambers – the chambers are aligned in a first direction and accessed by conveyers 221 as noted;
Further in regard to the process limitations and the defined substrate, as per MPEP 2115 “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the fact that the system is ‘intended’ to work on a particular substrate that is not positively recited does not limit the apparatus claims. Likewise the process steps are not limiting because the substrate and the films formed are not positively recited (but rather as intended use).
The same is held in regard to a system for “a display device” in regard to intended use, the prior art system is capable of the same.
It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply any number of such deposition/evaporation chambers, while the teachings exemplify 3 chambers 140, 160 and 180, the broader teachings include “at least one processing chamber [0043] and as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, to apply more portions (i.e. chambers) in the apparatus of Ponnekanti would have been obvious for the purpose of carrying out more process steps. Because the first-fourth chambers are not required to be used for a particular process (intended use) the presence of the chambers meets the claim requirements in regard to the portions (chambers).
Regarding claim 2, as per above, the system includes any number of chambers, the system includes the following which are considered to meet the claimed preprocessing portion (the “preprocessing portion” is not further structurally defined beyond the chambers that comprise such a portion):
- load lock 120 [0043],
- a baking portion, see “thermal processing chambers” [0043],
- a plasma processing portion, see wherein any number of plasma application chambers are taught: generic teachings of plasma deposition and plasma exposure [0040] and plasma etching [0043],
- in regard to the securing portion – Ponnekanti teaches that the use of substrate carriers is known and it is obvious to include such carriers and systems to load and unload the substrates into and out of the carriers [0041], thereby meeting the ‘securing portion’. While the teachings include a preferred method without the carriers, the teaching still include the operability and obviousness of such – as per MPEP 2123, patents are relevant for all they contain and even non preferred embodiments that are part of the disclosure are relevant for matters of obviousness and anticipation and do not constitute a teaching away; as such, all elements of claim 2 are taught.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, if it were further determined that some particular arrangement is required by the specific chambers comprising the preprocessing portion, i.e. such as a particular order of chambers/portions that is not taught by the prior art, examiner further argues that per MPEP 2144.04 C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. The teachings of Ponnekanti are not specifically limited in the number of chambers or the arrangement, and further as per the MPEP citation it is obvious to rearrange such chambers in order to use such an apparatus in order to perform a desired process (the teachings particularly in [0041-43] include a large number of different chambers and as such variations).
Regarding claim 3, as in the case of the post-processing portion, the portion is not defined beyond the types of chambers that comprise the portion;
- as per above, there is a detachment portion as taught in regard to the substrate and carrier [0041],
- the arguments made above in regard to multiple deposition portions (chambers) are applied but not repeated, any number of deposition chambers/portions is operable,
- the teachings include an etch chamber [0043] and
- a second load lock chamber 192 [0043].
Regarding claim 4, the teachings do not explicitly teach that the conveyance system is capable of moving the carriers back to the second direction (i.e. effectively rerouting the carriers) but Examiner takes Official Notice that such steps are well known in the art and therefore the structure related to such a step is not patentable.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, as per above, any number of (evaporation) chambers is operable on the system, wherein not expressly taught to add all of the claimed chambers in the teachings, such chambers are obvious as required as a matter of routine duplication of parts.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, the teachings include robotic pickup, transfer, and drop-off [0041], thereby teaching a mechanism for raising perpendicularly.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the teachings of Ponnekanti include that the loading and unloading chambers (105 and 195) are connected to the conveyance system. While the specific details of the securing and detaching portions relative to the conveyance mechanism are not provided in the alternative embodiment – such portions are understood to be connected in order to effectively convey the substrates. Furthermore, the ‘connection’ between the two portions is broadly claimed and considered met by the teachings.
Regarding claim 10, as per above, the use of any (evaporation) chamber for a particular purpose is intended use of the apparatus; wherein the teachings do not specifically include the evaporation portion (deposition/evaporation chamber) adjacent the securing portion, the rearrangement of parts is addressed per above. Applicants demonstrate no criticality by the particularly claimed arrangement of the chambers.
. Regarding claim 13, as above, multiple evaporation portions (chambers) are taught – to include such a chamber adjacent to the attachment portion is a matter of the desired processes, (see above in regard to rearrangement of parts) but in any case the teachings include a processing (deposition) chamber/portion 190 next to the unloading (detachment) portion 192/195.
Regarding claim 14, all elements of the claim are taught as per above,
- a conveyance mechanism, see conveyors 221 [0048],
- the teachings include substrates [0047],
- multiple evaporation chambers – Ponnekanti teaches any number of chambers 130-190, including deposition (PVD) chamber including evaporation chambers [0121];
- the preprocessing portion including a securing portion is addressed as per claim 2 and postprocessing portion comprising a detachment portion is address as per claim 3 above and not repeated,
- the securing portion adjacent to the one of the evaporation chambers is addressed as per claim 10 above and will not be repeated.
- the detachment portion being adjacent to an evaporation chamber is addressed as per claim 13 above and will not be repeated.
Regarding claim 15, as per above, the use of particular chambers for particular processes is intended use of the apparatus and not limiting, wherein the prior art generally teaches deposition/evaporation chambers. The number of chambers is also addressed per above (claim 1).
Regarding claims 16-18, the arrangement of the chambers is addressed per claim 14 above, the specific use of the chambers is intended use.
Regarding claim 19, all elements of the claim are taught as per above,
- a conveyance mechanism, see conveyors 221 [0048],
- the teachings include substrates [0047],
- the preprocessing portion including a securing portion is addressed as per claim 2 and postprocessing portion comprising a detachment portion is address as per claim 3 above and not repeated,
- multiple evaporation chambers – Ponnekanti teaches any number of chambers 130-190, including deposition (PVD) chamber including evaporation chambers [0121];
- in regard to the different chambers, that has been addressed above as intended use and further the number of chambers is obvious for the purpose of forming desired films.
Regarding claim 20, the securing portion is addressed as claim 16 above and won’t be repeated.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponnekanti (2013/0171757) in view of White (2016/0355924).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the teachings of Ponnekanti do not specifically teach return of a carrier, further to claim 5 the teachings do not include a rail system wherein there is a carrier return rail. White, however, teaches that in a continuous processing system with multiple chambers (see Fig. 6 for example), it is useful to convey components such as carriers by tracks (i.e. rails as claimed) with a returned rail (track) for bringing the carriers back for reuse [0061]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the carrier return track as taught by White to the apparatus of Ponnekanti because Ponnekanti teaches it is useful to use carriers for substrates but offers no further details on the use/reuse of them and White teaches that such carriers are transportable by rails/tracks.
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, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. 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