CTNF 18/597,956 CTNF 87633 DETAILED ACTION 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: tilting mechanism in claim 4. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangert (US 2017/0346044) in view of Kim (US 2016/0214133) . In regards to claim 1 , Bangert teaches a deposition apparatus (500) comprising: a left side magnetic guiding element-524 or carrier-421 (first stage) (fig. 5b; para. 45, 65); a left side distribution pipe-106 (first deposition head) that deposits a first material on a processing substrate (121) arranged on the left side magnetic guiding element-524 (fig. 3-5; para. 64-66); a right side magnetic guiding element-524 or carrier-421 (second stage) (fig. 5b; para. 45, 65); and a right side distribution pipe-106 (second deposition head) that deposits a second material on the processing substrate which is arranged on the right side magnetic guiding element-524 and on which the first material is deposited (fig. 3-5; para. 26, 37-38, 41, 44, 48, 51-52, 64-66); each of the distribution pipes-106 comprising: an evaporation crucible-104 (deposition source) heating a material and generating vapor (fig. 3-5, 7; para. 72-73); and a plurality of openings-712 (nozzle) connected to the deposition source to emit the vapor generated by the evaporation crucible (fig. 3-5, 7; para. 75-76). Bangert does not explicitly teach a spread angle of the vapor of the first material emitted from the first deposition head being set to a first angle, a spread angle of the vapor of the second material emitted from the second deposition head being set to a second angle different from the first angle. However, Kim teaches a first module-110 and second module-120 each comprising nozzles (210/220). Kim teaches the first module-110 comprises a first angle restriction plate-310 that has a first height-310a. Kim teaches the second module-120 comprises a second angle restriction plate 320 that has a second height-310a (fig. 1-2; para. 30-37). Kim teaches the heights of the angle restriction plates maybe changed for the first and second modules, where changes to the angle will change the deposition thickness. (fig. 1; para. 27, 36-37, 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the first angle restriction plate and second angle restriction plate of Kim onto the distribution pipes of Bangert because Kim teaches it will allow uniform thickness increase (para. 29). In regards to claims 4-6 , Bangert and Kim as discussed, where Bangert teaches the distribution pipes are provided on supports-102, which allow for rotation (tilting) relative to the substrate (fig 3-5; para. 23, 49, 51). In regards to claims 7-8 , Bangert and Kim as discussed, the processing materials used is a process limitation rather than an apparatus limitation, and the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115). Furthermore, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP2114). As Bangert and Kim teach the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of using the discussed apparatus with the claimed process the first material is a material for forming a lower layer of an organic layer constituting an organic EL element, and the second material is a material for forming an upper layer of the organic layer constituting the organic EL element or the first material is a material for forming an organic layer constituting an organic EL element, and the second material is a material for forming an upper electrode constituting the organic EL element . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,770 (issue date: 05/26/2026, corresponding US 20230220548 cited) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,770 are equivalent except for application 18597956 claimed first stage and second stage . However, U.S. Patent No. 12,637,770 does teach a first stage-1101 with a deposition head-1201, nozzle-1221 and a sleeve-1241, together with a second stage-1102 with a deposition head-1202, nozzle-1222 and a sleeve-1242 (fig. 9; para. 101-107). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT. 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 2 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 3 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 4 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 5 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 6 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 7 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 8 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/597,956 Page 9 Art Unit: 1717
Prosecution Insights