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
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,202,591 to Witzman et al.
Regarding claim 1: in Figs. 3A, 7 and 11A, e.g., Witzman et al. disclose a vapor deposition apparatus comprising: a vaporization portion (e.g., 160a-c) 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 (at distal end of chimney provide for 160a) to discharge the first material; a second nozzle hole adjacent to the first nozzle hole (at distal end of chimney provide for 160b) and to discharge the second material; and a third nozzle hole (at distal end of chimney provide for 160c) adjacent to the first nozzle hole and the second nozzle hole and to discharge the third material. 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 WItzman et al., the vaporization portion comprises: a first crucible (162, as shown, e.g., in Fig. 7 for 160a as shown in Fig. 11A) to vaporize the first material; a second crucible (162, as shown, e.g., in Fig. 7 for 160b as shown in Fig. 11A) adjacent to the first crucible and to vaporize the second material; and a third crucible (162, as shown, e.g., in Fig. 7 for 160c as shown in Fig. 11A) adjacent to the second crucible and to vaporize the third material.
With respect to claim 3, in Witzman 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 figures 7 and 11A.
With respect to claim 4, in Witzman et al., the first nozzle portion further comprises: a first connection portion (180-181, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160a) connected to the vaporization portion and through which the first material passes; a second connection portion (180-181, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160b) adjacent to the first connection portion, connected to the vaporization portion, and through which the second material passes; and a third connection portion (180-181, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160c) adjacent to the second connection portion, and through which the third material passes.
With respect to claim 5, in Witzman et al., the insides of the first connection portion, the second connection portion, and the third connection portion are spaced from each other, see e.g. aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 6, in Witzman et al., the first nozzle portion comprises: a first channel (166, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160a) connected between the first connection portion and the first nozzle hole; a second channel (166, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160b) adjacent to the first channel and connected between the second connection portion and the second nozzle hole; and a third channel (166, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160c) adjacent to the second channel and connected between the third connection portion and the third nozzle hole.
With respect to claim 7, in Witzman et al., insides of the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are spaced from each other, see, e.g., aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 8, in Witzman et al., the second channel is between the first channel and the third channel, see, e.g., aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 11, in Witzman et al., the first nozzle portion further comprise a first heater (see, e.g., Fig. 3A, 82) to heat the first connection portion, the first channel, the second connection portion, the second channel, the third connection portion and the third channel.
With respect to claim 12, in Witzman et al., 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., facing substrate as in Fig. 11A).
With respect to claim 13, in Witzman 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, the discharged first, second, and third materials are mixed an upper side of the first nozzle portion (e.g., corresponding to the substrate surface). 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 Witzman et al., the first nozzle portion further comprises a first angle limiting portion (see, e.g., Fig. 3A, 94) around the first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole, and the third nozzle hole.
With respect to claim 15, in Witzman et al., the apparatus further comprises a pipe portion (180-181, e.g., as in Fig. 7, with respect to 160a-c) connected between an upper portion of the vaporization portion and a lower portion of the first nozzle portion.
Regarding claim 20: in Figs. 7 and 11A, e.g., Witzman et al. discloses a vapor deposition apparatus comprising: a vaporization portion (e.g., 160a-b) to vaporize a plurality of different materials (e.g. a first material, a second material and a third material -- (wherein by nature of being a first, second material they are fairly considered to be “different” from each other)); and a nozzle portion connected adjacent to the vaporization portion and comprising a nozzle hole (one of holes at distal end of chimneys provided for 160a-b) to discharge a material of the plurality of materials and another nozzle hole (another one of holes at distal end of chimneys provide for 160a-b) adjacent to the nozzle hole and to discharge another material of the plurality of materials; and at least one other nozzle portion adjacent to the nozzle portion and comprising another nozzle hole (hole at distal end of chimney provided for 160c) to discharge another material. 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).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR Pub. No. 2015/0081857 to Kang 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 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. 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: a first channel (left 25) connected between the first connection 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.
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 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 12, in Kang et al., the first nozzle hole, the second nozzle hole, and the third nozzle hole of the first nozzle portion are located at a same region. 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.
Regarding claim 20: in Figs. 1-2 and the accompanying text (see translation), e.g., Kang et al. disclose a vapor deposition apparatus 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; 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. 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).
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) 9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witzman et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 11-15 and 20 above and as further discussed below.
With respect to claim 9, Witzman et al. fails 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 Fig. 11A, 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 Witzman 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 claims 16-19, each of the claimed features is addressed above and by simply adding additional crucibles and associated structure as detailed in Witzman 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 10-14 and 20 above and as further discussed below.
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 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights