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 with traverse of claims 1-12 and 14-20 in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that the elected apparatus claims and the method claim are linked by the same or corresponding special technical features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the restriction requirement between Groups I and II.”. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner’s March 25, 2026 office action cites prior art, and rejections, demonstrating that Choi (US 20050251990 A1) teaches the special technical feature(s).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “tangential junction”, “having an aperture angle which continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi, Soo Young et al. (US 20050251990 A1). Choi teaches a nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) for an evaporated material (“gas” throughout) distributor (218; Figure 2-Applicant’s 206a,b; Figure 3), the nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) comprising: a nozzle inlet (inlet of Figure 6G-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1,3) for receiving evaporated material (“gas” throughout);a nozzle outlet (outlet of Figure 6G-Applicant’s 120; Figure 1); and a nozzle passage (constant diameter passage; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 130; Figure 1) extending between the nozzle inlet (inlet of Figure 6G-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1,3) and the nozzle outlet (outlet of Figure 6G-Applicant’s 120; Figure 1) having a first passage portion (constant smallest diameter portion; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 133-6/25/26 amendment) including an inlet diameter (constant smallest diameter portion; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 133-6/25/26 amendment), a second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) and a third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment) including an outlet diameter (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment), the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) having an aperture angle which continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet (inlet of Figure 6G-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1,3) to the nozzle outlet (outlet of Figure 6G-Applicant’s 120; Figure 1) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment) having an essentially constant aperture angle, wherein a diameter of the nozzle increases from the inlet diameter (constant smallest diameter portion; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 133-6/25/26 amendment) of the first passage portion to the outlet diameter (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment) of the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment), as claimed by claim 1
Choi further teaches:
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein the first passage portion (constant smallest diameter portion; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 133-6/25/26 amendment) has an aperture angle of essentially 0º, as claimed by claim 2
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle passage (constant diameter passage; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 130; Figure 1) includes a tangential junction (not shown by Applicants) between the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment), as claimed by claim 6
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) comprises a material adapted for an evaporated organic material having a temperature between about 100ºC and about 600ºC, as claimed by claim 8. The above/below italicized claim text is considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Use of a nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according claim 1 for depositing a material on a substrate (240; Figure 2; [0070]) in a vacuum deposition chamber (202; Figure 2; [0070]), as claimed by claim 9
A material deposition source (204; Figure 2; [0070]) for depositing a material on a substrate (240; Figure 2; [0070]) in a vacuum deposition chamber (202; Figure 2; [0070]), comprising: a distributor (218; Figure 2-Applicant’s 206a,b; Figure 3) in fluid communication with a material source (204; Figure 2; [0070]); and at least one nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, as claimed by claim 10
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 3-5, 7, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Soo Young et al. (US 20050251990 A1). Choi is discussed above. Choi further teaches
wherein the nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) passage includes a tangential junction (not shown by Applicants) between the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment) - claim 14
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 5, wherein the nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) comprises a material adapted for an evaporated organic material having a temperature between about100 °C and about600°C - claim 17
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 6, wherein the nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) comprises a material adapted for an evaporated organic material having a temperature between about100 °C and about600°C – claim 18
The use of a nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 15, wherein the material is deposited on the substrate (240; Figure 2; [0070]) for producing an organic light emitting diode, as claimed by claim 20
Choi does not dimension Choi’s Figure 6G embodiment. As a result, Choi does not teach:
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1,wherein the aperture angle continuously increases in the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) up to an angle of α >25º, as claimed by claim 3
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 2,wherein the aperture angle continuously increases in the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) up to an angle of α <40°, as claimed by claim 4
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein a length ratio along the direction between the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 132-6/25/26 amendment) is from 1:2 to 2:1, as claimed by claim 5
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein an inner diameter of the first passage portion (constant smallest diameter portion; Figure 6G-Applicant’s 133-6/25/26 amendment) is 10 mm or below, as claimed by claim 7
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 5, wherein an inner diameter of the first passage portion is 10 mm or below, as claimed by claim 15
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 6, wherein an inner diameter of the first passage portion is 10mm or below, as claimed by claim 16
Choi discusses nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) dimensions in other embodiments such as Figure 3, 7A-D.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Choi to optimize Choi’s relative nozzle dimensions as taught by Choi in at least Figures 3, 7A-D and [0091].
Motivation for Choi to optimize Choi’s relative nozzle dimensions as taught by Choi in at least Figures 3, 7A-D and [0091] is for improving “film thickness and film property uniformities” as taught by Choi ([0091]). It is well established that changes in apparatus dimensions are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.(Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.04)
Claims 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Soo Young et al. (US 20050251990 A1) in view of Sonoda; Tohru et al. (US 20130260499 A1). Choi is discussed above. Choi does not teach:
The material deposition source (204; Figure 2; [0070]) according to claim 10, wherein the material source (204; Figure 2; [0070]) is a crucible for evaporating material and wherein the distributor (218; Figure 2-Applicant’s 206a,b; Figure 3) includes a linear distribution pipe, as claimed by claim 11
A vacuum deposition system, comprising: a vacuum deposition chamber (202; Figure 2; [0070]); and a material deposition source (204; Figure 2; [0070]) according claim 10 in the vacuum deposition chamber (202; Figure 2; [0070]), as claimed by claim 12
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein a main evaporation direction of the nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) is an essentially horizontal direction, as claimed by claim 19
Sonoda also teaches a vapor deposition apparatus (50; Figure 1,2) placed inside a deposition vacuum chamber ([0150]) including:
The material deposition source (93; Figure 1,2; [0151]) according to claim 10, wherein the material source (93; Figure 1,2; [0151]) is a crucible ([0151]) for evaporating material and wherein the distributor (91; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 206a,b; Figure 3) includes a linear distribution pipe (Figure 1,2), as claimed by claim 11
A vacuum deposition system (Figure 1,2), comprising: a vacuum deposition chamber (“vacuum chamber” [0150]) and a material deposition source (93; Figure 1,2; [0151]) is a crucible ([0151]) according claim 10 in the vacuum deposition chamber (“vacuum chamber” [0150]), as claimed by claim 12
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claim 1, wherein a main evaporation direction of the nozzle (92; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) is an essentially horizontal direction, as claimed by claim 19
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sonoda to use Choi’s nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) design at optimized dimensions.
Motivation for Sonoda to use Choi’s nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) design at optimized dimensions is for improving “film thickness and film property uniformities” as taught by Choi ([0091]). It is well established that changes in apparatus dimensions are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.(Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Choi discloses a gas distribution plate for a PECVD chamber, not a nozzle (See Choi, [0005]-[0007], and [0063]). Choi discloses that the gas distribution plate distributes precursor gas for depositing thin films, and that the hollow cathode cavity may be changed by varying the diameter "D," the depth "d," and the flaring angle "a." (see Choi, [0091])".
“
In response, Choi’s nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]) is indistinguishable from Applicant’s claimed nozzle (100; Figure 1,3). Under BRI, these nozzles are holes. In the case of Choi, the hole is in Choi’s GDP. In the case of Applicant, the hole is in Applicant’s “distributor” (206a/b).
Applicant states:
“
Claim 1, presented herein, recites an aperture angle that continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet and a diameter that increases from the inlet diameter of the first passage portion to the outlet diameter of the third passage portion.
“
And..
“
The Office Action identifies, at most, a transition from a smaller diameter to a larger diameter. However, the Office Action does not identify where Choi discloses an aperture angle that continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet. Although Choi discloses varying diameter, depth, and flaring angle, Choi is silent as to an aperture angle that continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet.
“
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “recites an aperture angle that continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response, the claimed invention requires “the second passage portion (Applicant’s 131-6/25/26 amendment) having an aperture angle which continuously increases in a direction from the nozzle inlet (Applicant’s 110; Figure 1,3) to the nozzle outlet (Applicant’s 120; Figure 1)”. Emphasis added. Further, the Examiner has added a new drawing objection addressing the not shown “having an aperture angle which continuously increases”. Figure 1, showing the claimed aperture angle, does not increase “continuously” through both Applicant’s 131, 132 passage portions. The claimed angle only increases continuously through Applicant’s second passage portion 131 at most. Third passage portion 132 has a constant aperture angle and is thus not increasing in this zone. Choi also teaches these features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080305246 A1, US 20100006031 A1, US 20190177839 A1, US 20180090300 A1, US 20040129211 A1, US 20190338412 A1.
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights