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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-12 and 14-20, drawn to a nozzle for an evaporated material distributor.
Group II, claim 13, drawn to a method for depositing a material.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I,II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “a nozzle for an evaporated material distributor”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Choi, Soo Young et al. (US 20050251990 A1). See below.
During a telephone conversation with Todd Patterson on March 18, 2026 (voicemail) a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-12 and 14-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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, the below enumerated claimed features 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 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.
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-not shown by Applicants), a second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants) and a third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants), the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants) 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-not shown by Applicants) having an essentially constant aperture angle, 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-not shown by Applicants) 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-not shown by Applicants) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants), as claimed by claim 6
The nozzle (262; Figure 2,6G; [0079]-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1,3) according to claims 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 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.
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-not shown by Applicants) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants) - 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-not shown by Applicants) 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-not shown by Applicants) 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 claims 1, wherein a length ratio along the direction between the second passage portion (transition from small constant diameter to large constant diameter; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants) and the third passage portion (constant diameter portion of outlet; Figure 6G-not shown by Applicants) 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-not shown by Applicants) 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).
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.
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