DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim requires that the apparatus is to evaporate an evaporation material on a “to be evaporated article”. While a preamble clause, this is not clear, at the – evaporation material apparently is being directed to a substrate so it is not clear why this is referred to as a to be evaporated article”. The claim also requires that the evaporation source further comprises a supporting means “with such a bottom plate part of the boat main body as defines the containing part”. This terminology is unclear. The claimed part is being interpreted as a bottom portion of the boat, i.e. bottom portion of the “containing part” of the boat, but the additional verbiage “such a” makes unclear exactly the parts required . Regarding claim 4 , the claim requires the area to be “equivalent or above the area” – this is confusing as to what “above” is meant to mean “greater than” or rather refers to the physical location. As it is not clear, it will be interpreted in either manner. 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 -3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (2007/0251457) in view of R i midiotti (2004/0107904) . Ohsawa teaches an evaporation source comprising, see Figs. 1A and 8A particularly, wherein: - an evaporation boat including a main boat body with a containing part for evaporation material, see reference to boat 301 ( Fig. 8A), the electrode mounting parts are extending outward from at both ends of the boat, see 111a/b/113 as per Fig. 1 and [0042-44], - and wherein the evaporation source further comprising a support means in contact with the bottom plate of the boat main body – see Fig. 8A at least wherein the plate(s) 105/a and 104 are in contact with the boat bottom, and the containing part is understood to be under the weight caused by evaporation material. The teachings do not include a material feeding means, however. Rimediotti teaches an equivalent evaporation apparatus, see Figs. 1 and 2, wherein electrodes (39) are connected to a boat (33). The system includes a material feeding means, see unwinding reels 51 [0036] for handing a wire evaporation material from an upper side. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the material feeding means of Rimediotti to the system of Ohsawa as Ohsawa teaches an evaporation system with a boat but no method of feeding (or at least refilling) the boat and Rimediotti teaches that reels are useful for the same. In both cases, current is applied across the electrodes to evaporate the material, see Ohsawa [0009] and Rimediotti [0033-34]. Regarding claim 2 , Ohsawa teaches that the supporting plate is disposed on a base plate 105b through an insulator (104). While the teachings do not specifically include multiple insulators, such would have been a simple matter of a change of shape of the insulator (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B) or alternatively a rearrangement of parts, also obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. There is no criticality demonstrated in the particular arrangement as claimed as opposed to multiple insulators. In regard to the material of the plate, it would be generally understood that the material is a high melting point material (in order not to be melted in with the evaporant). Regarding the specifically applied material, the Examiner takes Official Notice that to apply a (high melting point) metal would have been further obvious. Further as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case to apply such a material would have been obvious for the purpose as noted of not wanting the component to melt or evaporate. Regarding claim 3 , the teachings do not include the supporting plates in the claimed shape, but as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. the selection of a shape of an object is obvious without a showing of criticality. To select the claimed shape would have been obvious and there is no criticality demonstrated in the instant application. In regard to the formation of the u by bending, the limitation is drawn to a product-by-process. Per MPEP 2113: I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Therefore, in this case, while the specific shape holds patentable weight, the method of producing the shape is irrelevant. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa and Remidiotti in view of Nakashima (2007/0003718). Regarding claim s 4 and 5 , the teachings of Ohsawa include multiple plates, see 105a, 104, 105b and 111c, but do not teach a reflector plate. Nakashima, however, teaches that it is useful to have a reflector near an evaporation source (understood as allow for reflectance of heat/energy ) [0077]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the reflector of Nakashima to the apparatus of Ohsawa for the purpose of containing heat. As noted Ohsawa already teaches a number of plates therefore making any reflective would have been an obvious selection of materials (see MPEP 2144.07 above) and/or a rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 as per above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5825 and fax is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (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