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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 are pending and rejected. Claims 1-10, 13, 15, and 16 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
In a voice message with William Lindemann, an oral election of species A1, B1, and C2 was made. Claims 1-10, 13, 15, and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 and in the voice message 3/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 11, 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, CN 103966572 A (provided on the IDS of 9/16/2024).
The following citations for Wang, CN 103966572 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet and the figures in the original document.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches a method (a roll-to-roll atomic layer deposition apparatus and its method of use, 0002) comprising:
arranging a first atomic layer deposition (ALD) head and a second ALD head along a path of transport of a flexible substrate (where the apparatus has six reaction chambers arranged along roll devices that convey a flexible substrate, 0046, 0058, 0065, and Fig. 2, where the reaction chambers are used for atomic layer deposition, 0008, 0009, 0017, and 0021, and since the ALD process is provided while moving the substrate, the heads and process are understood to be directed to spatial ALD);
transporting the flexible substrate along the path (where the flexible substrate is moved through the apparatus with the rotation of the roll device, 0046, 0058, 0065, and Fig. 2); and
delivering, in sequence, gas to the flexible substrate with the first and second ALD heads under atmospheric conditions to apply a coating to the flexible substrate as the flexible substrate is transported along the path (where the reaction chambers provide inert gas and a reactant gas, 0045, and the reaction chambers are used to provide the same oxide or different oxide film and they can be provide different reactants to deposit films prepared by reactants A, B, and C, 0065-0066 and Fig.2, such that the gases will be delivered in sequence to the flexible substrate with the first and second ALD heads to apply a coating to the flexible substrate as it is transported along the path under the heads, and where the process is done at atmospheric conditions, i.e., an atmospheric environment, 0008).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the process of claim 11. They further depict the SALD heads as delivering gas to the same side of the flexible substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the process of claim 11. They further depict the first and second SALD heads as being at a same leg of a reversal in the path (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches the process of claim 11. They further teach that the first and second heads provide gases to form different layers of the coating (0066).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka, US 2013/0089665 A1 in view of Spath, US 2018/0265982 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Takenaka teaches a method (a self-limiting reaction deposition apparatus and a self-limiting reaction deposition method, 0002) comprising:
arranging a first atomic layer deposition (ALD) head and a second ALD head along a path of transport of a flexible substrate (where a plurality of ALD heads 12A, 12B, and 12C for depositing an atomic layer on a base material are successively disposed along the conveying direction of the base material and are configured to be capable of discharging towards the front surface of the base material, 0070 and Fig. 1, where the base material is provided by unwind roller and is wound up by a wind-up roller, 0099, 0103, and Fig. 1, such that it is understood to be flexible);
transporting the flexible substrate along the path (conveying, while supporting a first surface of a base material conveyed by a roll-to-roll process by a plurality of guide rollers, 0037, 0063, 0110, Fig. 1, and Fig. 2, such that the flexible substrate will be conveyed along the path); and
delivering, in sequence, gas to the flexible substrate with the first and second ALD heads to apply a coating to the flexible substrate as the flexible substrate is transported along the path (discharging a raw material gas for self-limiting reaction deposition from the plurality of heads so thin films having at least one atomic layer are successively formed on the surface of the base material, 0038, 0087, 0113, and Fig. 1).
While they do not specifically teach that the heads are spatial ALD heads, since they are ALD heads that deposit films as the substrate moves relative to the heads, they are understood to be spatial ALD heads.
They teach that the apparatus includes a heater, where the heating temperature of the base material is not particularly limited (0096). They teach that it is possible to freely adjust a deposition atmosphere of the base material, where an atmosphere in the chamber may be air or reduced pressure (0036), suggesting that the pressure can be atmospheric.
They do not specifically teach depositing at atmospheric conditions.
Spath teaches a thin film deposition system that includes a web guide system and a deposition head located along the web transport path (abstract). They teach that spatial ALD (SALD) employs a continuous gaseous material distribution from a deposition head, where the precursors are separated in space by the flow of an inert gas, rather than being separated in time (0006). They teach that the thin film deposition is done using SALD (0054). They teach that the SALD system is one in which a substrate is moved relative to a fixed deposition unit 210, where the deposition unit can be any type of SALD deposition head (0059, 0065, and Fig. 1). They teach using roll-to-roll deposition systems (0030 and Fig. 4). They teach that SALD enables operation at atmospheric or near-atmospheric pressure and is capable of operating in an unsealed or open-air environment, making it compatible with web coating (0006). They teach that the deposition head can be used at atmospheric pressure without any additional environmental controls for the external environment, providing advantages of being able to be used to coat on substrates whose length is much larger than the length of the deposition zone (0068). They teach that the apparatus can be used at or near atmospheric pressure and over a broad range of ambient and substrate temperatures, preferably a temperature of under 300°C (0080). Therefore, Spath teaches performing SALD using roll-to-roll coating, where it is desirable for the process to be done at or near atmospheric pressure and over a broad range of ambient and substrate temperatures.
From the teachings of Spath, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Takenaka to have performed the SALD process under atmospheric conditions, such as atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature because Spath teaches that SALD is desirably done under such conditions for coating long substrates such as webs such that it will be expected to also be desirable in the roll to roll process of Takenaka.
Regarding claim 12, Takenaka in view of Spath suggest the process of claim 11. Takenaka further teaches arranging the first and second SALD heads to deliver gas to the same side of the flexible substrate (0087 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Takenaka in view of Spath suggest the process of claim 11. Takenaka further teaches that the second head may be configured to discharge the same gas as the raw material gas discharged from at least one first head or a gas different from the raw material gas discharged from the at least one first head (0022). They teach that the second head may form an atomic layer or a molecular layer including the same material as that of the first heat or different from the first head (0022). Therefore, the gas delivered in sequence to the flexible substrate from the first and second SALD heads under atmospheric conditions will form different layers of the coating, i.e., different materials.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka in view of Spath as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Fischer, WO 2017/153356 A1.
The following citations for Fischer, WO 2017/153356 A1 are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet and the figures in the original document.
Regarding claim 14, Takenaka in view of Spath suggest the process of claim 11. Takenaka depicts various path arrangements (Fig. 1, Fig. 7).
They do not teach that the first and second SALD heads are positioned at a same leg of a reversal in the path.
Fischer teaches a device for depositing films by at least two self-limiting surface reactions on a substrate, where self-limiting reactions under consideration include ALD or MLD reactions (0002 and 0003). They teach that the device moves two film webs in a straight alignment between two plates (0013). They teach that the device is designed for coating a film web in a continuous process (0015). They teach an arrangement having a total of seven pairs of coating plates arranged individually side by side and in four tiers, for example in a frame, for a double pass of the film web (0072 and Fig. 16).
From the teachings of Fischer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first and second SALD heads at a same length of a reversal in the path because Fischer teaches that it is desirable to coat webs with multiple self-limiting reaction heads side-by-side, where the path includes reversals such that it will be expected to provide a desirable configuration for coating the flexible substrate with multiple SALD heads.
Regarding claim 18, Takenaka in view of Spath suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach attaching the first and second SALD heads to a frame.
Fischer teaches that for any necessary cleaning work on the active surfaces of the coating plate and the counter plate, they can be mounted in a frame construction so that they can be moved apart to widen the gap (0064 and Fig. 8b). They teach arranging the coating plates in a frame (0072). Therefore, the SALD heads are attached to a frame and are installed in an existing manufacturing line.
From the teachings of Fischer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed the SALD heads in a frame and to have installed the frame in an existing manufacturing line because Fischer teaches that it is desirable to mount SALD heads on a frame and both Fischer and Takenaka have the SALD heads in an existing manufacturing line such that it will be expected to desirably provide the SALD heads in the manufacturing line for coating where having them on a frame will also facilitate cleaning as indicated by Fischer while supporting the SALD heads.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Fischer, WO 2017/153356 A1.
The following citations for Wang, CN 103966572 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet and the figures in the original document.
The following citations for Fischer, WO 2017/153356 A1 are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet and the figures in the original document.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the process of claim 11.
They do not teach attaching the heads to a frame.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Fischer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed the SALD heads in a frame and to have installed the frame in an existing manufacturing line because Fischer teaches that it is desirable to mount SALD heads on a frame and both Fischer and Wang have the SALD heads in an existing manufacturing line such that it will be expected to desirably provide the SALD heads in the manufacturing line for coating where having them on a frame will also facilitate cleaning as indicated by Fischer while supporting the SALD heads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1718