DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponnekanti (2013/0171757) in view of Heimel (2020/0040445).
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).
In regard to the securing and detaching 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.
In regard to the conveyance mechanism – the teachings of Ponnekanti do not include the claimed conveyance mechanism comprising a first rail and second rail. Heimel, however, teaches in a system including multiple deposition stations (105), see Fig. 1 and [0020-24], and carriers transporting the substrates (see [0008-11]), an operable manner of controlling the flow of materials is to have the substrates pass such stations as deposition stations on one track that is in one direction from the deposition (or other) source, wherein further beyond the deposition source from the first track that carries the deposition substrate is a second track for carrying the carriers back to the start of the process/system. See noted Fig. 1 as well as [0029-34] which includes the first track 122 and return track 123. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the track system of Heimel in combination with the teaches of Ponnekanti as it would allow processing of the substrates in the same manner but the added benefit of the return of the substrate carriers as claimed. In combining the art, the evaporation sources are equivalent to the deposition sources of Heimel and taught by both references and are aligned per Heimel in the manner as claimed with the first rail between the deposition parts and second rail.
In combining the teachings, particularly wherein Ponnekanti teaches carriers and Heimel teaches the transfer of substates on carriers and a return path on the second rail it is understood the first rail for conveying a secured substrate and the second rail for carrying the detached carrier is met.
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] and 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 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;
- 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 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.
The further teachings of the first and second rails and arrangement are also described above per claim 1 and not 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.
The further teachings of the first and second rails and arrangement are also described above per claim 1 and not repeated.
Regarding claim 20, the securing portion is addressed as claim 16 above and won’t be repeated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Office agrees that the teachings including White do not address the claim elements but now Heimel is applied herein. In regard to the objections, the Office agrees that the amendments overcome the rejecitons.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights