DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 8/9/24, the requirements 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) are met.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered.
Specification
The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 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. Specifically, Claim 1 recites, and its dependent Claims 2-20 all incorporate, inter alia, “a head unit disposed on the stage”. The head unit 200 is, however, disposed well above the stage STG, as illustrated e.g. in Applicant’s Fig. 6. Claims 1-20 are, therefore, indefinite in view of this limitation. For the purposes of further examination, Claim 1 is assumed to recite, and its dependent Claims 2-20 all incorporate, inter alia, “a head unit disposed [[above the stage in a vertical bottom-to-top direction and comprising: a nozzle unit, a first coating portion covering a bottom surface of the head unit and at least a part of an inner surface of the nozzle unit, and wherein a thickness of at least a part of the first coating portion becomes narrower toward a top in the vertical bottom-to-top direction of the first coating portion”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (U.S. 2015/0286272 A1) in view of Lim et al. (U.S. 2005/0190231 A1).
Ueda et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, an apparatus (100, §0057 and Fig. 10) for manufacturing display devices, the apparatus comprising:
a stage (101, §0057 and Fig. 10); and
a head unit (80, §0057 and Figs. 11A-B) disposed above the stage in a vertical bottom-to-top direction and comprising:
a nozzle unit (31, §§0054-0057 and Figs. 7-11),
a first coating portion covering a bottom surface of the head unit (§0054)
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the head unit further comprises an ink reservoir which stores an ink (§0056),
wherein the nozzle unit comprises:
a first passage connected to the ink reservoir (§0056);
Regarding Claim 10, wherein at least one of a width of the first passage and a width of the third passage is constant (12, §§0026-0031 and Fig. 1).
Ueda et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, the first coating portion covering at least a part of an inner surface of the nozzle unit, and
wherein a thickness of at least a part of the first coating portion becomes narrower toward a top of the first coating portion.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the first coating portion has a Venturi tube shape or an orifice shape.
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the first coating portion comprises:
a first portion disposed on the bottom surface of the head unit;
a second portion disposed on one side of the first portion; and
a third portion disposed on one side of the second portion and disposed on the inner
surface of the nozzle unit.
Regarding Claim 4, wherein a thickness of the third portion becomes narrower toward the top of the first coating portion.
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the thickness of the third portion is smaller than a thickness of the first portion.
Regarding Claim 7, wherein a width of at least a part of the nozzle unit becomes narrower toward a top of the nozzle unit.
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the nozzle unit has a Venturi tube or funnel shape.
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the head unit further comprises an ink reservoir which stores an ink, wherein the nozzle unit comprises:
a first passage connected to the ink reservoir;
a second passage connected to the first passage; and
a third passage connected to the second passage, and
wherein the second passage becomes wider to the top of the nozzle unit.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the head unit further comprises an ejection controller disposed outside the nozzle unit, and
wherein the first coating portion does not overlap with the ejection controller.
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the first coating portion is not in direct contact with the ejection controller.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the ejection controller comprises a piezoelectric element.
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the first coating portion exposes at least a part of the inner surface of the nozzle unit.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the first coating portion is formed by a physical vapor deposition process.
Regarding Claim 16, further comprising: a second coating portion disposed between the first coating portion and the bottom surface of the head unit and between the first coating portion and at least a part of the inner surface of the nozzle unit.
Regarding Claim 17, wherein a thickness of the second coating portion is constant.
Regarding Claim 18, wherein the second coating portion comprises:
a first portion disposed on the bottom surface of the head unit;
a second portion disposed on one side of the first portion; and
a third portion disposed on one side of the second portion and disposed on the inner surface of the nozzle unit.
Regarding Claim 19, wherein a thickness of the first portion, a thickness of the second portion and a thickness of the third portion are equal to each other.
Lim et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, the first coating portion covering at least a part of an inner surface of the nozzle unit (131-134, §§0039-0049 and Fig. 4E), and
wherein a thickness of at least a part of the first coating portion becomes narrower toward a top of the first coating portion (Fig. 4E; please note that the nozzle plate is shown upside down compared to configuration of Ueda et al., as well as Fig. 1 of Lim et al., so the thickness decreasing downward in Fig. 4E of Lim et al. reads on this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the first coating portion has a Venturi tube shape or an orifice shape (Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the first coating portion comprises:
a first portion disposed on the bottom surface of the head unit (e.g. 131, 132, 134 on the top surface in the upside-down Fig. 4E);
a second portion disposed on one side of the first portion (e.g. 131, 132, 133 on the inner surface near the top in the upside-down Fig. 4E); and
a third portion disposed on one side of the second portion and disposed on the inner surface of the nozzle unit (e.g. 131, 133 on the inner surface below the second portion in the upside-down Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 4, wherein a thickness of the third portion becomes narrower toward the top of the first coating portion (Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the thickness of the third portion is smaller than a thickness of the first portion (Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 7, wherein a width of at least a part of the nozzle unit becomes narrower toward a top of the nozzle unit (20, Fig. 1 – the width of the nozzle plate 20 between the edge and the nozzle 22 is smaller on top than on the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the nozzle unit has a Venturi tube or funnel shape (Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the head unit further comprises an ink reservoir which stores an ink,
wherein the nozzle unit comprises:
a first passage connected to the ink reservoir (e.g. the top part of the nozzle 22, Fig. 1);
a second passage connected to the first passage (e.g. the middle part of the nozzle 22, Fig. 1); and
a third passage connected to the second passage (e.g. the bottom part of the nozzle 22, Fig. 1), and
wherein the second passage becomes wider to the top of the nozzle unit (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the head unit further comprises an ejection controller disposed outside the nozzle unit (40, §§0006-0009 and Fig. 1), and
wherein the first coating portion does not overlap with the ejection controller (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the first coating portion is not in direct contact with the ejection controller (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the ejection controller comprises a piezoelectric element (§0007 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the first coating portion exposes at least a part of the inner surface of the nozzle unit (Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the first coating portion is formed by a physical vapor deposition process (§§0026, 0039, 0043, Claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 16, further comprising: a second coating portion disposed between the first coating portion and the bottom surface of the head unit and between the first coating portion and at least a part of the inner surface of the nozzle unit (132, §§0040-0046 and Fig. 4E; please note that, for the purposes of Claims 16-20, the first coating portion is assumed not to comprise the metal layer 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 17, wherein a thickness of the second coating portion is constant (§0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 18, wherein the second coating portion comprises:
a first portion disposed on the bottom surface of the head unit (Fig. 4E);
a second portion disposed on one side of the first portion (Fig. 4E); and
a third portion disposed on one side of the second portion and disposed on the inner surface of the nozzle unit (Fig. 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Regarding Claim 19, wherein a thickness of the first portion, a thickness of the second portion and a thickness of the third portion are equal to each other (§0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the configuration of Lim et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to utilize a side-shooter printer head configuration for manufacturing display devices, hence reducing cost and increasing throughput and reliability.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (U.S. 2015/0286272 A1) and Lim et al. (U.S. 2005/0190231 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Nepomnishy et al. (U.S. 2011/0242219 A1).
Ueda et al. and Lim et al., in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 6, all limitations of Claim 5 (from which this Claim depends).
Ueda et al. and Lim et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 6, wherein an average of the thickness of the third portion is 0.3 times or less than the thickness of the first portion.
Nepomnishy et al. disclose the following:
Regarding Claim 6, optimizing the thickness of the non-wetting coating when it is applied (§0037), wherein non-wetting coating layers can be made thicker, which can make the coatings more robust than vapor deposited layers (§0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the optimization of Nepomnishy et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to improve robustness and increase reliability of the apparatus. Please see MPEP 2144.05 II for obviousness of routine optimization, and §§0023, 0035 of Nepomnishy et al. for optimization ranges. Routine optimization within ranges disclosed by Nepomnishy et al. is regarded as reading on the limitation “wherein an average of the thickness of the third portion is 0.3 times or less than the thickness of the first portion”.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (U.S. 2015/0286272 A1) and Lim et al. (U.S. 2005/0190231 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Rivas et al. (U.S. 2011/0018938 A1).
Ueda et al. and Lim et al., in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 20, all limitations of Claim 16 (from which this Claim depends).
Ueda et al. and Lim et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 20, wherein the second coating portion is formed by an atomic layer deposition process.
Rivas et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 20, wherein the second coating portion is formed by an atomic layer deposition process (§0018, Claims 11, 20). be made thicker, which can make the coatings more robust than vapor deposited layers (§0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the atomic layer deposition of Rivas et al. to the apparatus of Ueda et al. to improve deposition control and uniformity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Douglas X Rodrigues can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853