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 .
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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mouth opening" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka Takashi (JP 2013209679 A) (hereinafter Takashi) and further in view of Braune et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013/0189447 A1) (hereinafter Braune).
Regarding claim 1, Takashi discloses an apparatus for coating a strip-shaped substrate with a parylene layer within a working chamber, comprising: a take-off roller (12) for unwinding the strip-shaped substrate (Z); a take-up roller (16) for winding the strip-shaped substrate after the coating process; a processing roller (14), which is partially wrapped around the strip-shaped substrate and by means of which the strip-shaped substrate can be guided past a coating zone (Near 42); a first housing (40), which delimits the coating zone and which has a first opening which is directed toward the substrate, and wherein the first opening is delimited by a first opening edge; a second housing (46) having a second opening directed toward the substrate, wherein the second opening is surrounded by a second opening edge and wherein the second housing delimits the first housing, as a result of which the second housing defines a volume between the first housing and the second housing; at least one inlet (50), which extends through a wall of the first housing; and at least one pumping means (52), by means of which a negative pressure can be generated in the volume between the first housing and the second housing (Fig. 1, 2). Takashi is silent about at least one monomer-containing gas can be introduced into the coating zone for depositing the parylene layer. However, such a limitation does not structural limit the apparatus. This limitation is directed toward material being worked-upon by the apparatus.
Braune also discloses coating apparatus. The apparatus comprising a device (200) for carrying out producing a parylene coating (2) on at least one surface (11) of the component. The benefit of doing so would have been to produce paraylene coating.
Give the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to utilize coating device as taught by Braune within the apparatus as taught by Takashi. The benefit of doing so would have been to form parylene coating on a substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Takashi discloses gas flow control member (46) (corresponding to first housing) is spaced apart from the drum (14) at 3 mm (¶0076). The benefit of doing so would have been to properly control the distribution of raw material gases in the film deposition area and the discharge of raw material gases from the film deposition area. Natrually, a person of ordinary skill in the art would place the second housing at 3 mm.
Regarding claim 3, Takashi discloses a displacement sensor (78) is a sensor that detects the tip position of the gas flow control member 46 and measures the distance between the gas flow control member (46) and the drum (14) In the film deposition chamber (76) shown in Figure 5, heating (expansion due to heating) of the gas flow control member (46) is detected by measuring the distance between the gas flow control member (46) and the drum (14). The detection result of the tip position of the gas flow control member (46) by the displacement sensor (78) is supplied to the gas flow control means (80). The gas flow control means (80) detects the distance between the gas flow control member (46) and the drum (14) from the tip position of the gas flow control member (46). When this distance falls below a predetermined threshold, it issues an instruction to the gas supply means (50) to reduce the amount of raw material gas supplied by a predetermined amount compared to when the distance does not fall below the threshold (¶0063-¶0064). Thus, Takashi discloses the importance of maintaining distance between the gas supply and substrate on drum (14) to control the distribution and exhaust of the raw material gas in the film deposition region. Given the wealth of knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily adjust the distance between mouth opening of the at least one inlet from the substrate to obtain desired result.
Regarding claim 4, Takashi discloses wherein the working chamber (30) has a processing chamber (34), within which the coating zone is formed (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Takashi discloses the pressure of 40Pa is set within the processing chamber (¶0078).
Regarding claim 9, Takashi discloses the processing roller is a cooling cylinder or a cooling roller (¶0033).
Regarding claim 10, Takashi discloses the temperature of first housing (46) is at 45⁰C-90⁰C (¶0086-¶0089). Takashi discloses the importance of maintaining the temperature of housing near the processing chambers through the references. Thus, the sound housing (40) temperature would naturally be maintained at similar range.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi and Braune as applied to claims 1-5, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Jae Hyun Lee (KR 20210014010 A) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takashi and Braune as cited above. They are both silent about limitations of claim 8.
Lee also discloses an apparatus of coating a strip-shaped substrate with a parylene layer. The apparatus discloses a vaporization unit 10, a decomposition unit 20, a deposition chamber 30, a cold trap 40, and a vacuum pump 50 (Fig. 2-3). The cold trap condensable components of the gas pumped out of the volume are filtered out before the pumped gas reaches the pumping means.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the cold trap as taught by Lee within the apparatus as taught by the combined teaching of Takashi and Braune. The benefit of doing so would have been to filter out condensable components from the gas.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi and Braune as applied to claims 1-5, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Kiyoshi Takahashi (EP 0 563 748 A2) (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching of Takashi and Braune. They are both silent about limitations of claims 6 and 7.
Takahashi disclose an apparatus for coating film on substrate. The apparatus comprises first housing (26) and second housing (29) (Fig. 2), wherein the volume between the first housing and the second housing, which corresponds to the a mximum of 80% of the pressure set within the first housing (Fig. 2-4). Takahashi further discloses a pressure of 1 x10-4 Torr and 1x10-4 Torr (corresponding to 0.0133 Pa). The benefit of doing so would have been to minimizes influence of unreacted gas exerted at the time of formation of the thin film but eliminates film forming defects resulting from slight abnormal discharge due to sudden pressure change.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize vacuum pressure and configuration as taught by Takahashi within the apparatus as taught by the combined teaching of Takashi and Braune. The benefit of doing so would have been to minimizes influence of unreacted gas exerted at the time of formation of the thin film but eliminates film forming defects resulting from slight abnormal discharge due to sudden pressure change.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights