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 without traverse of claims 37-43, 49-58, 63-66 in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 49 requires an “absorber element” illustrated at Applicant’s 24; Figure 11 and is not shown in elected Figures 3,4. Claim 49 is thus withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 58 requires an “flexible foil” illustrated at Applicant’s 66; Figure 12 and is not shown in elected Figures 3,4. Claim 58 is thus withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “radiation plane (Applicant’s 110; Figure 2)”, “absorber element 24” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Claims 37-43, 50-57, 63-66 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims start by reciting “System according to” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 37-43, 50-57, 63-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 37, 39, 64, 65, 66 do not distinguish between the numerous sources and “the source”.
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 37-43, 50, 53, 54, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasushi Adachi (JP 2013079437 A). Yasushi teaches an Apparatus (Figure 2,3) for a thermal evaporation system for coating a coating region (2; Figure 3,4) on a front surface of a substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) with a source material (11; Figure 2,3; machine translation) thermally evaporated and/or sublimated from a source by electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), the Apparatus (Figure 2,3) comprising a source arrangement (11,25; Figure 2,3; machine translation-Applicant’s 16; Figure 2) for arranging the source, whereby the source comprises one or more source section consisting of the source material (11; Figure 2,3; machine translation), and a substrate arrangement (2,16,16a,17,17a; Figure 2-3; machine translation-Applicant’s 18; Figure 2) for arranging the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation), whereby the source arrangement (11,25; Figure 2,3; machine translation-Applicant’s 16; Figure 2) and the substrate arrangement (2,16,16a,17,17a; Figure 2-3; machine translation-Applicant’s 18; Figure 2) are arranged within a reaction chamber (18,23; Figure 1-3; machine translation) of the Apparatus (Figure 2,3) fillable with a reaction atmosphere, the reaction chamber (18,23; Figure 1-3; machine translation) further comprising a chamber window (31, 30; Figure 1; not shown Figures 2,3; required; translation) for coupling the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) provided as one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) into the reaction chamber (18,23; Figure 1-3; machine translation) such that the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) and a normal to the surface of the source include an incident angle larger 0º and smaller 90º and thereby form a radiation plane (Applicant’s 110; Figure 2),wherein the substrate arrangement (2,16,16a,17,17a; Figure 2-3; machine translation-Applicant’s 18; Figure 2) comprises a substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) for arranging the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) within the reaction chamber (18,23; Figure 1-3; machine translation), whereby the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) comprises an actuator (“mechanism for rotationally driving..moving back and forth”; not shown, machine translation-Applicant’s 22; Figure 2) for moving the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) relative to the source for rearranging the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) with respect to the position of the coating region (2; Figure 3,4) on the front surface of the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation), as claimed by claim 37
Yasushi further teaches:
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to arrange the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) between the chamber window (31, 30; Figure 1; not shown Figures 2,3; required; translation) and the source for arranging a substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) with a substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) material transparent or at least essentially transparent to the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 38
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to keep a distance between the source (assumed to be “material” 11; Figure 2,3; machine translation) and the coating region (2; Figure 3,4) constant or at least essentially constant during the movement of the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation), as claimed by claim 39
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to arrange the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) at least at the coating region (2; Figure 3,4) perpendicular to the radiation plane (Applicant’s 110; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 40. Applicant’s claimed radiation plane formed by “…one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) into the reaction chamber (18,23; Figure 1-3; machine translation) such that the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) and a normal to the surface of the source include an incident angle larger 0º and smaller 90º and thereby form a radiation plane (Applicant’s 110; Figure 2)” is met by Yasushi. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to move the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) in at least one of the following ways:- linearly - circularly - helically – meanderingly, as claimed by claim 41
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to move the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) at least on average along an intersection line of the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) and the radiation plane (Applicant’s 110; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 42
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to move the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) at constant velocity, as claimed by claim 43. The claimed velocity, refferred to as “speed” by Yasushi, is a process variable that does not further distinguish the claimed structure. 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).
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37 wherein the substrate holder (20, 21, 16, 16a, 17, 17a; Figure 2,3-Applicant’s 20; Figure 2) is configured to hold and move two or more substrate segments (top and bottom 2; Figure 2-4) during the coating process, whereby the two or more substrate segments (top and bottom 2; Figure 2-4) are arranged back to back to form the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation), as claimed by claim 50
Thermal evaporation system, for coating a coating region (2; Figure 3,4) on a front surface of a substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) with a source material (11; Figure 2,3; machine translation) thermally evaporated and/or sublimated by electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) from a source, comprising an apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 37, wherein a source comprising one or more source sections consisting of a source material (11; Figure 2,3; machine translation) is arranged in the source arrangement (11,25; Figure 2,3; machine translation-Applicant’s 16; Figure 2), a substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) is arranged in the substrate arrangement (2,16,16a,17,17a; Figure 2-3; machine translation-Applicant’s 18; Figure 2), a reaction atmosphere is filled into the reaction chamber and an electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) provided by an electromagnetic radiation source (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) is coupled into the reaction chamber (18,23; Figure 1-3; machine translation) through the chamber window (31, 30; Figure 1; not shown Figures 2,3; required; translation), the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) being used for illuminating the source for thermal evaporation and/or sublimation of the source material (11; Figure 2,3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 53. The above and/or below italisized claim text is considered intended use in 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).
System according to claim 53 wherein the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) comprises a substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) material transparent or at least essentially transparent to the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 54. Further, Yasushi clearly shows radiation transmitting through Yasushi’s substrate 2. However, the pending apparatus claims are not limited by the substrate’s composition or physical characteristics.
System according to claim 53 wherein the provided electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) is laser (throughout machine translation) light, as claimed by claim 63
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yasushi Adachi (JP 2013079437 A). Under anticipation, the Examiner believes that the claim 64 and claim 65 recitations are intended use recitations for the pending apparatus claims. Specifcally, Yasushi teaches the system according to claim 53 wherein the one or more of Yasushi’s incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) are focused towards Yasushi’s source (11; Figure 2,3; machine translation-assumed to be Applicant’s claimed source material) such that a median intersection area (not shown by Yasushi-Applicant’s 94; Figure 3) of Yasushi’s one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) with the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) is larger than an intersection area of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) and Yasushi’s surface of the source.
Yasushi further teaches Yasushi’s system according to claim 64 wherein the focal point or the focal volume of the focused one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) is arranged at the surface of the source, as claimed by claim 65
Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds for anticipation are not accepted, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yasushi to optimize Yasushi’s optics (32,34; Figure 2,3).
Motivation for Yasushi to optimize Yasushi’s optics (32,34; Figure 2,3) is for laser focusing as taught by Yasushi (throughout; machine translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 55 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi Adachi (JP 2013079437 A) in view of Matsuyama; Jinsho et al. (US 5510151 A). Yasushi discussed above. Yasushi does not teach:
System according to claim 53 wherein the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) is subdivided into two or more substrate segments (top and bottom 2; Figure 2-4) connected by a substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) and moved together during the coating process, as claimed by claim 55
System according to claim 53 wherein the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) and the surface normal to the source include an incident angle between 20º and 70º, as claimed by claim 66
Matsuyama also teaches web processing continuous substrates including web connecting means (1309a; Figure 13d) between “new” (1304) and “former” (1302) substrates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yasushi to connect Yasushi’s substrates as taught by Matsuyama.
Motivation for Yasushi to connect Yasushi’s substrates as taught by Matsuyama is for “to continue film formation without opening the film-forming chamber to the open air.” As taught by Matsuyama (column 40; lines 40-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 51-52 and 56-57 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yasushi Adachi (JP 2013079437 A) does not teach, alone or in combination the limitations including:
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 50 wherein the two or more substrate segments (top and bottom 2; Figure 2-4) are arranged back to back connected by a substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) , and wherein the actuator (“mechanism for rotationally driving..moving back and forth”; not shown, machine translation-Applicant’s 22; Figure 2) is configured to actively reduce the velocity of the movement of the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) during an illumination of the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) by parts of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation), if the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) is less transparent than the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) with respect to the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 51
Apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 50 whereinthe actuator (“mechanism for rotationally driving..moving back and forth”; not shown, machine translation-Applicant’s 22; Figure 2) is configured to actively increase the velocity of the movement of the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) during an illumination of the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) by parts of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation), if the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) is more transparent than the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) with respect to the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 52
System according to claim 53 wherein the electromagnetic radiation source (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) is constructed such that an intensity of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) is increasable during an illumination of the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) by parts of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) if the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) is less transparent than the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) material of the adjacent substrate segments (top and bottom 2; Figure 2-4) with respect to the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 56
System according to claim 54 wherein the electromagnetic radiation source (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation) is constructed such that an intensity of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) is reducible during an illumination of the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) by parts of the one or more incident radiation beams (throughout; translation) if the substrate connector (Applicant’s 72; Figure 2) is more transparent than the substrate (2; Figure 2-4; machine translation) material of the adjacent substrate segments (top and bottom 2; Figure 2-4) with respect to the electromagnetic radiation (12,13; Figure 1-3; machine translation), as claimed by claim 57
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Continuous processing apparatus over large areas include: US 5980975 A; US 5085166 A; US 5065697 A; US 6776847 B2
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