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 .
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
Applicant’s election of Species A, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 1 April 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
On 31 July 2026, claim 12 was cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Pub. No. 2015/0081857 to Kang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0045958 to Abiko et al.
Regarding claim 1: in Figs. 1-2 and the accompanying text (see translation), e.g., Kang et al. disclose a vapor deposition apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a vaporization portion (crucibles, not shown, corresponding to 24, 22, 24 [left to right]) to vaporize a first material, a second material and a third material (wherein by nature of being a first, second, and third material they are fairly considered to be “different” from each other); and a first nozzle portion connected adjacent to the vaporization portion, wherein the first nozzle portion comprises: a first nozzle hole (hole at distal end of left nozzle 25) to discharge the first material; a second nozzle hole adjacent to the first nozzle hole (hole at distal end of nozzle 23) and to discharge the second material; and a third nozzle hole (hole at distal end of right nozzle 25) adjacent to the first nozzle hole and the second nozzle hole and to discharge the third material. In Kang et al., the first nozzle portion comprises: a first channel (left 25) connected between a first connection portion (of the vaporization portion) and the first nozzle hole; a second channel (23) adjacent to the first channel and connected between the second connection portion and the second nozzle hole; and a third channel (right 25) adjacent to the second channel and connected between the third connection portion and the third nozzle hole. The first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole, and the third nozzle hole of the first nozzle portion are located at a same region (e.g. nozzle plate region). See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
However, Kang et al. fails to disclose each of the first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole and the third nozzle hole overlaps the second channel.
Abiko et al. disclose a deposition apparatus having a plurality of nozzle portions (e.g., corresponding to Figs. 2-5 vaporization portions 11A and 11B) wherein mixing is desired and a nozzle hole (e.g. 13B) of one nozzle portion overlaps a channel (141A and 142A) of an adjacent nozzle portion when viewed from overhead for the purpose of ensuring proper mixing in combination with providing adjustability and control of respective film formation materials in the plurality of nozzle portions (see, e.g., paras. 13-42). Additionally, notably and importantly, Abiko et al. teaches that although two nozzle portions are illustrated, the invention is not so limited.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided each of the first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole and the third nozzle hole overlaps the second channel in order to ensure proper mixing in combination with provision of adjustability and control of respective film formation materials in the plurality of nozzle portions as taught by Abiko et al.
Additionally, regarding the identity of the plurality of materials, the courts have ruled expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 2, in Kang et al., the vaporization portion comprises: a first crucible (not shown, see translation) to vaporize the first material; a second crucible (not shown, see translation) adjacent to the first crucible and to vaporize the second material; and a third crucible (not shown, see translation) adjacent to the second crucible and to vaporize the third material.
With respect to claim 3, in Kang et al., with respect to claim 3, insides of the first crucible, the second crucible, and the third crucible are spaced from each other. See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 4, in Kang et al., the first nozzle portion further comprises: a first connection portion (left 24) connected to the vaporization portion and through which the first material passes; a second connection portion (22) adjacent to the first connection portion, connected to the vaporization portion, and through which the second material passes; and a third connection portion (right 24) adjacent to the second connection portion, and through which the third material passes.
With respect to claim 5, in Kang et al., the insides of the first connection portion, the second connection portion, and the third connection portion are spaced from each other. See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 6, in Kang et al., the first nozzle portion comprises: the first channel (left 25) connected between the first connection portion and the first nozzle hole; the second channel (23) is connected between the second connection portion and the second nozzle hole; and the third channel (right 25) is connected between the third connection portion and the third nozzle hole.
With respect to claim 7, in Kang et al., insides of the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are spaced from each other. See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 8, in Kang et al., the second channel is between the first channel and the third channel. See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 9, Kang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a shape of an inner space of the first channel is symmetrical to a shape of inner space of the third channel, and an shape of an inner space of the second channel is different from the shape of the inner space of the first channel and the shape of the third channel. However, this appears to be what is illustrated in Figs. 1-2, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising, ordinary creativity, common sense and logic also in possession of Kang et al. to have provided an apparatus having the same wherein the courts have ruled The courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 10, in Kang et al., an internal cross-sectional areas of the first channel decreases as the first channel extends from the first connection portion to the first nozzle hole, an internal cross-sectional area of the second channel decreases as the second channel extends from the second connection portion to the second nozzle hole, and an internal cross-sectional areas of the third channel decreases as the third channel extends from the third connection portion to the third nozzle hole. See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 11, in Kang et al., the first nozzle portion further comprise a first heater (26) to heat the first connection portion, the first channel, the second connection portion, the second channel, the third connection portion and the third channel. See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
With respect to claim 13, in Kang et al., wherein after the first material, the second material, and the third material are discharged from the first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole, and the third nozzle hole, and the discharged first, second, and third materials are capable of being mixed an upper side of the first nozzle portion. Additionally, with respect to intended use, the courts have ruled that 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).
With respect to claim 14, in Kang et al., the first nozzle portion further comprises a first angle limiting portion (40) around the first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole, and the third nozzle hole.
With respect to claim 15, in Kang et al. the apparatus further comprises a pipe portion (24, 22 and 24) connected between an upper portion of the vaporization portion and a lower portion of the first nozzle portion.
With respect to claims 16-19, each of the claimed features is addressed above and by simply adding additional crucibles and associated structure as detailed in Kang et al. and as detailed above, a second nozzle portion adjacent to the first nozzle portion and comprising a fourth nozzle hole to discharge a fourth material would be provided, wherein the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and wherein deposition additional materials using an additional nozzle portion is not viewed as a new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 20: in Figs. 1-2 and the accompanying text (see translation), e.g., Kang et al. disclose a vapor deposition apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a vaporization portion (crucibles, not shown, corresponding to 24, 22 [left to right]) to vaporize a plurality of different materials (wherein by nature of being a first, second material they are fairly considered to be “different” from each other) and comprising a nozzle hole (hole at distal end of left nozzle 25) to discharge a material of the plurality of materials and another nozzle hole (hole at distal end of nozzle 23) adjacent to the nozzle hole and to discharge another material of the plurality of materials, a channel (left 25) connected between the vaporization portion and the nozzle hole, and another channel (23) adjacent to the channel and connected between the vaporization portion and the another nozzle hole; and at least one other nozzle portion adjacent to the nozzle portion and comprising another nozzle hole (hole at distal end of right nozzle 25) to discharge another material. In Kang et al., with respect to the nozzle portion, the first nozzle hole and the another nozzle hole are located at a same region (e.g. nozzle plate region). See aforementioned Figs. 1-2.
However, Kang et al. fails to disclose each of the nozzle hole and the another nozzle hole, of the nozzle portion, overlap the another channel.
Abiko et al. disclose a deposition apparatus having a plurality of nozzle portions (e.g., corresponding to Figs. 2-5 vaporization portions 11A and 11B) wherein mixing is desired and a nozzle hole (e.g. 13B) of one nozzle portion overlaps a channel (141A and 142A) of an adjacent nozzle portion when viewed from overhead for the purpose of ensuring proper mixing in combination with providing adjustability and control of respective film formation materials in the plurality of nozzle portions (see, e.g., paras. 13-42). Additionally, notably and importantly, Abiko et al. teaches that although two nozzle portions are illustrated, the invention is not so limited.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided each of the nozzle hole and the another nozzle hole, of the nozzle portion, overlap the another channel in order to ensure proper mixing in combination with provision of adjustability and control of respective film formation materials in the plurality of nozzle portions as taught by Abiko et al.
Additionally, regarding the identity of the plurality of materials, the courts have ruled expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pubs. 2008/0264342 and 2013/0189445 similar deposition apparatus with nozzle portions and vaporization portions.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
