DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest (2013/0208036) in view of Shtein (2005/0087131), Burrows (2011/0097495) and Kato (2015/0030761).
Forrest teaches an organic printing system comprising:
- a resistively heated print head comprising, see Fig. and related text,
- a nozzle block comprising a delivery aperture in fluid communication with an organic material to be deposited on a substrate, see block 12 with apertures 26 to deliver an organic material [0012],
- one or more shield gas distribution channels, see apertures 42 that provide a shield gas as claimed,
- exhaust vents (i.e. exhaust channels) 44 adjacent to the delivery aperture to capture the exhaust and wherein the shield gas distribution channels are arranged to provide a shield gas to prevent material from a chamber ambient of reaching the exhaust, see arrows from 42.
Forrest teaches all elements of the claims except for the print head being resistively heated and the claimed chiller plate, the teachings also do not explicitly include a chamber, however Examiner would initially take the position that a chamber is implicitly taught. Shtein teaches that it is useful to heat a print head nozzle used to deliver organic material with (resistive) heating elements, see 150 per Fig. 1 and [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the heaters of Shtein in the apparatus of Forrest as it is useful to heat the nozzle as per Shtein. In further regard to the chamber, Shtein also teaches that it is useful to contain the materials and head in a chamber [0057].
In regard to the chiller plate, Burrows, however, is equivalent art and teaches an organic vapor printing apparatus including a chiller plate, such as 320 in Fig. 3 [0039,59] and further 453 in Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the chiller plate of Burrows to the apparatus of Forrest as it would allow for further control of the temperature of the process. The plate of Burrows has an opening for a gas nozzle (and as per Fig. 4, the chiller plate includes at least a window for the print head) but the placement of the chiller plate per Burrows is not necessarily as claimed, but Kato teaches that when applying a chiller (cooling) plate to a deposition system – it is useful to keep it between the nozzle (i.e. print head equivalent) and the substrate and to include openings so as not to inhibit supply of deposition material [0058] and Fig. 2. This would be understood to suggest not inhibiting any gas flows such as exhaust and/or the shield gas flows.
The combined teachings include the exhaust/vent channels, a chiller plate and openings as per Burrows and Kato for the print head, one of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, to include such openings for the exhaust and shield gas flows in the chiller plate between the substrate and printhead would have been obvious in view of the totality of the art and functionality.
Regarding claim 2, as depicted, the print head (12) is one unit and would be understood to be removable wherein removable is not particularly limited.
Regarding claim 3, a plurality of shield gas apertures are depicted.
Regarding claim 4, as depicted, the shield gas is provided by nozzles as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, as per Fig. 4, the chiller plate includes at least a window for the print head and in combination again would be understood to include such windows as to allow for the different openings of Forrest such as claimed (i.e. to the sides of the print head and therefore to the sides of the window).
Regarding claim 6, the gas apertures are aligned in an array per Forrest. 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). In this case, the “printed features” are on a substrate and the apparatus would be usable with any substrate, regardless of orientation.
Regarding claim 7, in combining the teachings of the references, it would be further obvious to include openings for the exhaust for continuity of the system and in order for all parts to achieve their intended purposes.
Regarding claim 9, the print head is movable (claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, there are compression springs 32 that allow for an angle of the nozzle block to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 11, as depicted, the apertures are disposed on the nozzle block.
Regarding claim 12, as per Fig. 4 and related text, Burrows teaches that it is useful to include multiple heads/nozzles in a single system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply multiple deposition heads as directed by Burrows in the apparatus of Forrest as it would allow for increased production. Furthermore, it is known that a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 13, both references teach the heads moving relative to the substrate, it would have been further obvious to include the multiple heads in one carriage in order for continuity of movement and functionality. In other words, it would have been a mere matter of combining the teachings in a usable manner. Furthermore, Burrows generally teaches movement and the portions are understood to move as one.
Regarding claim 14, the arrangement of the shield gas apertures is a matter of the arrangement of the parts. To modify the arrangement of parts is routine as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. In this case, the exact location/dispersion of the shield gas is not critical as long as it solves the common problem of containing gas flows.
Regarding clam 15, the print head as claimed is not limited, and that of Forrest has delivery, confinement and exhaust and therefore is held to meet the requirements.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, as per above, the combined teachings include the claimed chiller plate which includes the shield gas ports as described. As noted, the chiller plate would include a number of apertures for the shield gas and exhaust nozzles. To the extent that the ‘print heat’ is intended use, it is held as met by the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Shtein, Burrows and Kato and in further view of Lee (2014/0030056).
The teachings of Forrest et al are described above, but do not specifically include the claimed rounded edges of the chiller plate. Lee teaches that generally on a flow guide plate it is operable to include square, rounded or beveled edges [0033]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the rounded edges as taught by Lee in the chiller plate of Burrows and Forrest as an operable manner of forming such openings. It is further noted that as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. a change of shape is obvious without a showing of criticality. There is no teaching in the reference that the shape is critical (within the scope of the claims) and the prior art teaches that any such shape is operable. It is noted that the chiller plate is an intended use (i.e. to cool) but the plate is functional even when not employed to actively cool and therefore the flow plate of Lee is sufficiently analogous).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kato teaches a compound gas and not a shield gas through the chiller plate. The office maintains the rejection because, initially, the teachings are applied more broadly than any particular application of a gas and furthermore, in any case, the use of a particular gas is intended use of the apparatus. The teachings as applied are to flow a gas through apertures in such a plate, not specifically to flow the particular gas and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715