DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2024 is fully considered by the examiner, all pages are not signed.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1, drawn to apparatus, classified in C23C14/042.
II. Claim 2, drawn to method, classified in Y10T29/49828.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the second nozzle can be formed with the first nozzle of the apparatus claims by attachment (i.e. without tensile force).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and
- the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Jason Martone on September 27, 2024 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claim 1. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 2 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 cancellation 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 § 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 USC 103(a).
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada (2002/0076847) and in view of Sawada (EP1418250).
Yamada teaches a film deposition apparatus comprising (see Figs. 8-10 and related text [0082-86]):
- a deposition source having a deposition material (see source 200)
- the sources are understood to comprise a first nozzle wherein they have outlets and the nozzle is not particularly limiting
The teachings of Yamada are described above including a deposition source and first nozzles, but not teaching second nozzles or the barrier wall assembly as claimed.
Sawada teaches that a barrier wall assembly is an effective way of regulating flow of evaporated material from an evaporation source to a substrate, with the configuration allowing further for preventing material waste (Fig. 4, [0035-41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply of the barrier wall assembly of Sawada in the method of Yamada as Sawada teaches that the assembly is an effective manner of managing the flow of material from an evaporation source to the substrate. The barrier wall assembly of Sawada is an operable way of delivering material and is operably employed and includes, as depicted, two nozzles including barrier wall assemblies between the nozzles arranged in the first direction.
One would operably apply a set of barrier walls to any and all of the nozzles of Yamada, the combination results in a first and second set of nozzles, as each of the sets of barrier walls includes a "nozzle plate” (see horizontal piece separating barrier walls 25) which are the first and second nozzles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 7am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Meeks, can be reached on 571-272-1423. 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 1715