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 .
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 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species A and Species I in the replies filed on 03/04/2026 and 09/05/2025 (respectively) are acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirements, the elections have been treated as elections without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9, 1, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the replies filed on 03/04/2026 and 09/05/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant has utilized “beam splitter” to describe element 50 in Fig. 1A of the instant application. However, the element 50 does not seem to be a beam splitter (as in, a structure directed to split beams of light), but rather a filter, baffle, or a reflector for particle streams. As such, for the purposes of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered filters, baffles, and reflectors as analogous structures to the applicant’s “beam splitter.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 3678889), Ramm et al. (US 20180002805), and Takada et al. (JP H08199345).
Regarding Claim 1:
Murakami teaches A thin film deposition apparatus (pipe assembly 72), comprising: an evaporation source (evaporation source 81) at a bottom of a film deposition chamber of the thin film deposition apparatus (as evidenced by Fig. 8, the source 81 can be placed near a bottom of the assembly 72) [Fig. 8, 9 & Col. 5 lines 59-75, Col. 6 lines 1-9].
Murakami does not specifically disclose a plurality of beam splitters in a middle of the film deposition chamber, wherein each beam splitter comprises a frame and a plurality of beam splitter components arranged at intervals on the frame, and each beam splitter component comprises a plurality of reflecting surfaces connected in series.
Ramm teaches a plurality of beam splitters (filter net assembly 2 may have one or more stable net layers 201) in a middle of the film deposition chamber, wherein each beam splitter comprises a frame (each stable net layer may be arranged in a frame construction) and a plurality of beam splitter components arranged at intervals on the frame, and each beam splitter component comprises a plurality of reflecting surfaces (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the filter net assembly 201 comprises multiple reflecting surfaces) connected in series [Fig. 6, 9 & 0044, 0062, 0077, 0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Murakami to include beam splitters, as in Ramm, to provide finer control over particle transparency [Ramm - 0066, 0081-0082, 0095].
Modified Murakami does not specifically disclose a plane reflector.
Takada teaches a plane reflector (reflector 29) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 lines 30-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include a reflector, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle directionality and deposition composition [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29].
It is noted that although the combination of references does not specifically disclose "a plurality of evaporation sources, wherein each plane reflector is located at a side of a corresponding beam splitter inside the film deposition chamber," the examiner considers the specific arrangement and number of reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters are design choice because the applicant has not provided, in their specification, criticality (as in the criticality of placing the reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters in the specific arrangement provides) or specific reasons as to why the specific arrangement of the instant application would yield unpredictable results (See MPEP 2144.04). Specifically, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the applicant's arrangement through routine experimentation; the purposes of beam splitters, evaporation sources, and reflectors are well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art, and since no unpredictable results or criticality has been established by the applicant, the examiner belives that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed inventions arrangement (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 2:
Murakami does not specifically disclose wherein the reflecting surface is flat or curved.
Ramm teaches wherein the reflecting surface is flat or curved (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the reflecting surfaces of the filter net assembly 201 are rectangular) [Fig. 6, 9 & 0044, 0062, 0077, 0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Murakami to include beam splitters, as in Ramm, to provide finer control over particle transparency [Ramm - 0066, 0081-0082, 0095].
Regarding Claim 3:
Murakami does not specifically disclose wherein any two adjacent reflecting surfaces among the plurality of reflecting surfaces connected in series are angled.
Ramm teaches wherein any two adjacent reflecting surfaces among the plurality of reflecting surfaces connected in series are angled (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the reflecting surfaces of the filter net assembly 201 are angled) [Fig. 6, 9 & 0044, 0062, 0077, 0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Murakami to include beam splitters, as in Ramm, to provide finer control over particle transparency [Ramm - 0066, 0081-0082, 0095].
Regarding Claim 4:
Murakami does not specifically disclose wherein the beam splitter component has a square prism structure.
Although Ramm does not specifically disclose "wherein the beam splitter component has a square prism structure," Ramm does disclose that the shape of a beam splitter is a result effective variable. Specifically, the shape of a beam splitter can be changed to determine a filtering effect relative to an evaporation source; the shape of a beam splitter can be any shape to properly filter a stream of particles [Ramm - 0080]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum shape for a beam splitter to achieve a desired filtering effect. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5:
Murakami teaches a curved reflector (reflector 83) [Fig. 8 & Col. 5 lines 59-75, Col. 6 lines 1-9].
It is noted that although the combination of references does not specifically disclose "a plurality of curved reflectors, corresponding one-to-one to the plurality of evaporation sources, at the bottom of the film deposition chamber; wherein the plurality of curved reflectors correspond one-to-one to the plurality of plane reflectors respectively," the examiner considers the specific arrangement and number of reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters are design choice because the applicant has not provided, in their specification, criticality (as in the criticality of placing the reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters in the specific arrangement provides) or specific reasons as to why the specific arrangement of the instant application would yield unpredictable results (See MPEP 2144.04). Specifically, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the applicant's arrangement through routine experimentation; the purposes of beam splitters, evaporation sources, and reflectors are well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art, and since no unpredictable results or criticality has been established by the applicant, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed inventions arrangement (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Furthermore, the limitations “each curved reflector is configured to reflect a material beam from a corresponding evaporation source onto a corresponding plane reflector,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that the reflector 83 of Murakami reflects the material coming out of source 81 [Fig. 8, 9 & Col. 5 lines 59-75, Col. 6 lines 1-9].
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein each evaporation source comprises at least one nozzle, and the at least one nozzle faces a curved reflector corresponding to the evaporation source.
Takada teaches wherein each evaporation source comprises at least one nozzle (nozzle 4) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 & lines 51-60].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaporation sources of Modified Murakami to have nozzles, as in Takada, to provide further control over material directionality [Takada - Page 4 & lines 51-60].
It is noted that although the combination of references does not specifically disclose " the at least one nozzle faces a curved reflector corresponding to the evaporation source," the examiner considers the specific arrangement and number of reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters are design choice because the applicant has not provided, in their specification, criticality (as in the criticality of placing the reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters in the specific arrangement provides) or specific reasons as to why the specific arrangement of the instant application would yield unpredictable results (See MPEP 2144.04). Specifically, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the applicant's arrangement through routine experimentation; the purposes of beam splitters, evaporation sources, and reflectors are well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art, and since no unpredictable results or criticality has been established by the applicant, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed inventions arrangement (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 7:
Murakami teaches wherein each evaporation source comprises at least one nozzle (nozzle 4) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 & lines 51-60].
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein each plane reflector is rectangular in shape.
Takada teaches wherein each plane reflector is rectangular in shape (as evidenced by Fig.1, reflector 29 is rectangular in shape) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 lines 30-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include a reflector, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle directionality and deposition composition [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein each evaporation source is a point source
Takada teaches wherein each evaporation source is a point source (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the crucible 3 provides an evaporation point source) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 & lines 51-60].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaporation sources of Modified Murakami to have nozzles, as in Takada, to provide further control over material directionality and density [Takada - Page 4 & lines 51-60, Page 5 lines 42-44].
It is noted that although the combination of references does not specifically disclose "the frame of the beam splitter is oval in shape," the examiner considers the shape of the frame of the beam splitters as being a mere matter of design choice because criticality (as in the criticality of the shape of the frame of the beam splitters) or specific reasons as to why the specific shape of the beam splitter frame would lead to unpredictable results have not been established by the applicant (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10:
Murakami teaches wherein a surface material of the curved reflector is stainless steel, Al2O3, single crystal silicon, or diamond coating film (the reflector 83 is comprised of stainless steel) [Fig. 8 & Col. 5 lines 59-75, Col. 6 lines 1-9].
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose a plane reflector.
Takada teaches a plane reflector (reflector 29) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 lines 30-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include a reflector, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle directionality and deposition composition [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29]. Furthermore, although Takada does not specifically disclose a reflector comprised of stainless steel, Murakami discloses that stainless steel is a suitable material for a reflector. As such, it would have been obvious to utilize a stainless steel reflector, since stainless steel is a suitable material for reflectors. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein the plane reflector comprises a heating component inside the plane reflector; the beam splitter component comprises a heating component inside the beam splitter component; and the curved reflector comprises a heating component inside the curved reflector.
Takada teaches wherein the plane reflector comprises a heating component inside the plane reflector (the reflector 29 may have a heating mechanism 30, such as a buried heater) [Fig. 1 & Page 5 lines 8-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include heaters in reflectors, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle adherence and particle reflection rates [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29]. Furthermore, it would be obvious to also modify the beam splitters and curved reflectors of Modified Murakami since they are also reflectors, and such, would also benefit from temperature control similarly to the reflector of Takada. Therefore the combination of references would disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein the heating component is a resistance wire.
Takada teaches wherein the heating component is a resistance wire (the reflector 29 may have a heating mechanism 30, such as a buried heater or a coil heater) [Fig. 1 & Page 5 lines 8-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include heaters in reflectors, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle adherence and particle reflection rates [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein the plane reflector comprises a heating component inside the plane reflector; and the beam splitter component comprises a heating component inside the beam splitter component.
Takada teaches wherein the plane reflector comprises a heating component inside the plane reflector (the reflector 29 may have a heating mechanism 30, such as a buried heater) [Fig. 1 & Page 5 lines 8-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include heaters in reflectors, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle adherence and particle reflection rates [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29]. Furthermore, it would be obvious to also modify the beam splitters and curved reflectors of Modified Murakami since they are also reflectors, and such, would also benefit from temperature control similarly to the reflector of Takada. Therefore the combination of references would disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose wherein the heating component is a resistance wire.
Takada teaches wherein the heating component is a resistance wire (the reflector 29 may have a heating mechanism 30, such as a buried heater or a coil heater) [Fig. 1 & Page 5 lines 8-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include heaters in reflectors, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle adherence and particle reflection rates [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29].
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Murakami (Murakami modified by Ramm) does not specifically disclose a plane reflector.
Takada teaches a plane reflector (reflector 29) [Fig. 1 & Page 4 lines 30-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Murakami to include a reflector, as in Takada, to provide further control over particle directionality and deposition composition [Takada - Page 5 & lines 8-29]. Furthermore, although Takada does not specifically disclose a reflector comprised of stainless steel, Murakami discloses that stainless steel is a suitable material for a reflector. As such, it would have been obvious to utilize a stainless steel reflector, since stainless steel is a suitable material for reflectors. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 16:
It is noted that although the combination of references does not specifically disclose "wherein in each beam splitter, each beam splitter component comprises a reflecting surface parallel to a plane reflector corresponding to the beam splitter," the examiner considers the specific arrangement and number of reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters are design choice because the applicant has not provided, in their specification, criticality (as in the criticality of placing the reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters in the specific arrangement provides) or specific reasons as to why the specific arrangement of the instant application would yield unpredictable results (See MPEP 2144.04). Specifically, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the applicant's arrangement through routine experimentation; the purposes of beam splitters, evaporation sources, and reflectors are well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art, and since no unpredictable results or criticality has been established by the applicant, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed inventions arrangement (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 18:
It is noted that although the combination of references does not specifically disclose "wherein the plurality of beam splitters are arranged along a direction perpendicular to a bottom wall of the film deposition chamber," the examiner considers the specific arrangement and number of reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters are design choice because the applicant has not provided, in their specification, criticality (as in the criticality of placing the reflectors, evaporation sources, and beam splitters in the specific arrangement provides) or specific reasons as to why the specific arrangement of the instant application would yield unpredictable results (See MPEP 2144.04). Specifically, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the applicant's arrangement through routine experimentation; the purposes of beam splitters, evaporation sources, and reflectors are well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art, and since no unpredictable results or criticality has been established by the applicant, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed inventions arrangement (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Usoskin et al. (US 20180073126) and Liang et al. (US 20210333467) teach reflectors [Usoskin – Fig. 1C; Liang – Fig. 3]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights