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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12-13, and 16-17 were amended. Claims 6 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-17 are in the application and pending examination. Claim 11 has been withdrawn. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 9 suggesting amending: “the mist supplier” in line 5, to “a mist supplier” by the Examiner was incorrect. The phrase “ a mist supplier” should be amended to “ [[a]] the mist supplying device ”
The previous objection to claim 17 for reciting : “the nozzle includes a plurality of nozzles respectively having the spraying ports” is withdrawn based on the amendment including the revision below:
“the nozzle includes a plurality of nozzles, each of the plurality of nozzles respectively having [[the]] a spraying port
Claim Interpretation
This application has been amended and no longer includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph without sufficient structural modification, because the following limitations have been modified to include sufficient structure. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: and “exhaust apparatus” in claim 3, “mist supplying device” in claim 9, and “exhaust” in claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 13-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 14.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida).
Regarding claim 1, Ogita teaches a film forming apparatus, comprising: a film forming chamber (2) in which a coating is deposited onto the substrate from a nozzle (61) to form a resin film on the substrate (11). (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Additionally, Ogita teaches a first roller (13) configured to convey the substrate (11) to the film forming chamber and a second roller (39) configured to convey the substrate from the film forming chamber. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Ogita teaches the first roller (13) and the second roller (39) are disposed at different positions in a direction of gravity. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Ogita does not explicitly teach a film forming apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: a film forming chamber in which the mist is sprayed onto the substrate from a nozzle to form a thin film on the substrate.
Nishida teaches a film forming apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: a film forming chamber in which the mist is sprayed onto the substrate from a nozzle (61) to form a thin film on the substrate (22c mist supplier, B, D). (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a film forming apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: a film forming apparatus in which the mist is sprayed onto the substrate from a nozzle to form a thin film on the substrate, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Regarding claim 1, Ogita teaches the first roller (13, 31) and the second roller (39, 41) the substrate between the first roller and the second roller is conveyed while being inclined with respect to a horizontal plane. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Ogita teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port (61 nozzle) configured to deposit the resin onto the substrate between the first roller and the second roller . (See Ogita, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 4, 45-47.)
Ogita does not explicitly teach the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist .
Nishida teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of the substrate). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Ogita in view of Nishida is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Ogita teaches the substrate is a flexible substrate (based on winding on rollers in Fig. 1) in a form of a film (resin film). (See Ogita, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 2, 36.)
Regarding claim 5, Ogita teaches the plurality of spraying ports is arranged along a direction in which the substrate is conveyed. (See Ogita, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 2, 36.)
Ogita does not explicitly teach nozzle includes plurality of spraying ports configured to spray the mist.
Nishida teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a plurality of of spraying ports configured to spray the mist, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Regarding claim 7, Ogita does not explicitly teach the thin film material comprises metal particles or metal oxide.
Kojima teaches the thin film material comprises fine metal particles (azo metal dyes) or metal oxide (indium tin oxide). (See Ogita, paragraphs 18 and 21.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the thin film material comprises fine metal particles or metal oxide, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 13 and 48.)
Regarding claim 7, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including the thin film material comprises fine metal particles or metal oxide. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including the thin film material comprises fine metal particles or metal oxide. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, Ogita teaches the flexible substrate is formed of a resin. (See Ogita, paragraph 43 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 8, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including the flexible substrate is formed of a resin. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 13, Ogita teaches the substrate between the first roller and the second roller is inclined within a range of 15 to 75 with respect to the horizontal plane perpendicular to a direction of gravitational force. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Regarding claim 17, Ogita teaches the nozzle includes a plurality of nozzles (61, 61), each of the plurality of nozzles respectively having a spraying port. (See Ogita, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 2, 30-31, 34-35.)
The previous rejection of claims 3-4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020187272 A1 to Kojima et al (hereinafter Kojima) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020187272 A1 to Kojima et al (hereinafter Kojima).
Regarding claim 3, Ogita does not explicitly teach an exhaust configured to be connected to the film forming chamber configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber, wherein an exhaust port of the exhaust is disposed on the same side of the surface of the substrate as the spraying port.
Ogita does not explicitly teach the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist.
Nishida teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Kojima is directed to forming a thin film on a substrate.
Kojima teaches an exhaust (13,14, ) configured to be connected to the film forming chamber (33) configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber, wherein an exhaust port of the exhaust is disposed on the same side of the surface of the substrate as the spraying port (35). (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, 40, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include an exhaust configured to be connected to the film forming chamber configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber, wherein an exhaust port of the exhaust is disposed on the same side of the surface of the substrate as the spraying port, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 13-14, 36, 40, and 48.)
Regarding claim 4, Ogita does not explicitly teach the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust is less than or equal to 75°.
Kojima teaches the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust is less than or equal to 75°. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust is less than or equal to 75°, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 12, Ogita does not explicitly teach the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 85°.
Kojima teaches the angular difference between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust is less than or equal to 85°. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust is less than or equal to 85°, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,110,618 to Horst Faust (hereinafter Faust) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,110,618 to Horst Faust (hereinafter Faust).
Regarding claim 9, Ogita does not explicitly teach a mist supplying device configured to be connected to the nozzle and supply the mist to the nozzle, wherein the mist supplying device comprises a liquid including a film material, wherein a mist supplier atomizes the liquid using an ultrasonic vibrator.
Faust is directed to coating a substrate with an atomizer.
Faust teaches the supplying apparatus includes a mist supplier configured to be connected to the nozzle and supply the mist to the nozzle to ( atomize a liquid including a film material); wherein a mist supplier atomizes the liquid using an ultrasonic vibrator. (See Faust, Figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 44-62.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a supplying apparatus configured to be connected to the nozzle and supply the mist to the nozzle, wherein the supplying apparatus comprises a liquid including a film material, wherein a mist supplier atomizes the liquid using an ultrasonic vibrator, because Faust teaches this arrangement can provide the coating in a such a way that the uniformity and anchoring of the coating on the substrate can be increased. (See Faust, Figs. 1 and 3 and col. 2, lines 5-10.)
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 4,425,869 to J. Richard Hull (hereinafter Hull) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070017442 A1 to Yamasaki et al (hereinafter Yamasaki) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 4,425,869 to J. Richard Hull (hereinafter Hull) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070017442 A1 to Yamasaki et al (hereinafter Yamasaki).
Regarding claim 10, Ogita does not explicitly teach an exposure device configured to illuminate the film formed on the substrate by the film forming apparatus, with a light in order to form a predetermined pattern on the substrate.
Hull is directed to deposition on a conveyed substrate.
Hull teaches a layer on a panel is hardened with exposure to UV light. (See Hull, col. 9, lines 15-30.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include exposure to UV light, because Hull teaches this process can be used to harden the coating on the substrate. (See Hull, col. 9, lines 15-30.)
Regarding claim 10, Ogita does not explicitly an exposure device configured to expose a predetermined pattern on the substrate by illuminating the substrate, on which the thin film is formed by the film forming apparatus, with light.
Yamasaki is directed to deposition on a conveyed substrate.
Yamasaki teaches an exposure device can be used to provide exposure to UV light. (See Yamasaki, paragraphs 26 and 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include an exposure device configured to expose a predetermined pattern on the substrate by illuminating the substrate, on which the thin film is formed by the film forming apparatus, with light, because Yamasaki teaches an exposure can be part of a thin film deposition apparatus. (See Yamasaki, paragraphs 26 and 42.)
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20020150679 to Minami et al (hereinafter Minami) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20020150679 to Minami et al (hereinafter Minami).
Regarding claim 15, Ogita does not explicitly teach the nozzle includes a movable member configured to change a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed.
Minami is directed to deposition on a substrate.
Minami teaches the nozzle includes a movable member (820) configured to change a spraying direction (630) in which the mist is sprayed. (See Minami, Abstract, Fig. 20, paragraphs 150-161.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a movable member configured to change a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed, because Minami teaches this structure allows the direction of the spraying to be changed. (See Minami, Abstract, Fig. 20, paragraphs 150-161.)
The previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20040148050 A1 to Jurgen Brosi (hereinafter Brosi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20040148050 A1 to Jurgen Brosi (hereinafter Brosi).
Regarding claim 16, Ogita does not explicitly teach the exhaust unit including an exhaust port configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber, the exhaust being configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber via the exhaust port.
Nishida teaches the exhaust unit (F) including an exhaust port (opening of line including 12 attached to A) configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber (A), the exhaust being configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber (line ending at 14) via the exhaust port . (See Nishida, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the exhaust unit including an exhaust port configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber, the exhaust unit being configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber via the exhaust port, because Nishida teaches this allows the exhaust to be removed from the interior of the film-forming chamber. (See Nishida, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 68.)
Regarding claim 16, Ogita does not explicitly teach an exhaust direction of the exhaust is changeable.
Brosi is directed to suction for removing particulate from areas of substrate.
Brosi teaches an exhaust direction of the exhaust is changeable. (See Brosi, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 56.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include wherein an exhaust direction of the exhaust is changeable, because Brosi teaches this allows the suction to be used in the desired area to remove the unwanted particles. (See Brosi, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 56.)
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 13-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 14.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-8, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida).
Regarding claim 1, Ogita teaches a film forming apparatus, comprising: a film forming chamber (2) in which a coating is deposited onto the substrate from a nozzle (61) to form a resin film on the substrate (11). (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Additionally, Ogita teaches a first roller (13) and a second roller (39) are disposed at positions different from each other in the direction of gravity, the substrate between the first roller and the second roller is conveyed while being inclined with respect to a horizontal plane. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Ogita does not explicitly teach a film forming apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: a film forming chamber in which the mist is sprayed onto the substrate from a nozzle to form a thin film on the substrate.
Nishida teaches a film forming apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: a film forming chamber in which the mist is sprayed onto the substrate from a nozzle (61) to form a thin film on the substrate (22c mist supplier, B, D). (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a film forming apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: a film forming apparatus in which the mist is sprayed onto the substrate from a nozzle to form a thin film on the substrate, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Ogita teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port (61 nozzle) configured to deposit the resin onto the part of the substrate. (See Ogita, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 4, 45-47.)
Ogita does not explicitly teach the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist onto the substrate between the first roller and the second roller .
Nishida teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist onto the substrate between the first roller and the second roller, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Additionally regarding claim 1, Ogita teaches the first roller (13) and the second roller (39) are disposed at different positions in a direction of gravity. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus configured to supply a mist including a film material onto a substrate to form a film on a surface of the substrate). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Ogita in view of Nishida is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Ogita teaches the substrate is a flexible substrate (based on winding on rollers in Fig. 1) in a form of a film (resin film). (See Ogita, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 2, 36.)
Regarding claim 5, Ogita teaches the coating is deposited onto the part of the substrate that is inclined through a plurality of spraying ports, and the plurality of spraying ports is arranged along a direction in which the substrate is conveyed. (See Ogita, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 2, 36.)
Ogita does not explicitly teach the mist is sprayed onto the part of the substrate that is inclined through a plurality of spraying ports.
Nishida teaches the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraph 65 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a spraying port configured to spray the mist, because Nishida teaches this arrangement can provide the conditions to efficiently form a reliable thin film. (See Nishida, Abstract, paragraphs 13 and 65.)
Regarding claim 7, Ogita does not explicitly teach the thin film material comprises metal particles or metal oxide.
Kojima teaches the thin film material comprises fine metal particles (azo metal dyes) or metal oxide (indium tin oxide). (See Ogita, paragraphs 18 and 21.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the thin film material comprises fine metal particles or metal oxide, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 13 and 48.)
Regarding claim 7, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including the thin film material comprises fine metal particles or metal oxide. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including the thin film material comprises fine metal particles or metal oxide. The substrate is not being given patentable weight in the coating apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, Ogita teaches the flexible substrate is formed of a resin. (See Ogita, paragraph 43 and Abstract.)
Regarding claim 8, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including the flexible substrate is formed of a resin. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 13, Ogita teaches the substrate is inclined within a range of 15 to 75 with respect to a horizontal plane perpendicular to a direction of gravitational force. (See Ogita, Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph 28.)
Regarding claim 17, Ogita teaches the nozzle is provided in plurality (61, 61) respectively having the spraying ports. (See Ogita, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 2, 30-31, 34-35.)
The previous rejection of claims 3-4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020187272 A1 to Kojima et al (hereinafter Kojima) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020187272 A1 to Kojima et al (hereinafter Kojima).
Regarding claim 3, Ogita does not explicitly teach an exhaust apparatus configured to be connected to the film forming chamber configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber, wherein an exhaust port of the exhaust apparatus is disposed on the same side of the surface of the substrate as the spraying port.
Kojima is directed to forming a thin film on a substrate.
Kojima teaches an exhaust apparatus (13,14, ) configured to be connected to the film forming chamber (33) configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber, wherein an exhaust port of the exhaust apparatus is disposed on the same side of the surface of the substrate as the spraying port (35). (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, 40, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include an exhaust apparatus configured to be connected to the film forming chamber configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber, wherein an exhaust port of the exhaust apparatus is disposed on the same side of the surface of the substrate as the spraying port, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 13-14, 36, 40, and 48.)
Regarding claim 4, Ogita does not explicitly teach the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 75°.
Kojima teaches the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 75°. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 75°, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding claim 12, Ogita does not explicitly teach the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 85°.
Kojima teaches the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 85°. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the angular difference between between a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed from the spraying port and an exhaust direction of the exhaust port is less than or equal to 85°, because Kojima teaches this arrangement can provide the desired pressure to provide the desired thin film deposition. (See Kojima, paragraphs 14, 36, and 48 and Fig. 2.)
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,110,618 to Horst Faust (hereinafter Faust) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,110,618 to Horst Faust (hereinafter Faust).
Regarding claim 9, Ogita does not explicitly teach a supplying apparatus configured to be connected to the nozzle and supply the mist to the nozzle, wherein the supplying apparatus comprises a liquid including a film material, wherein a mist supplier atomizes the liquid using an ultrasonic vibrator.
Faust is directed to coating a substrate with an atomizer.
Faust teaches the supplying apparatus includes a mist supplier configured to be connected to the nozzle and supply the mist to the nozzle to ( atomize a liquid including a film material); wherein a mist supplier atomizes the liquid using an ultrasonic vibrator. (See Faust, Figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 44-62.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a supplying apparatus configured to be connected to the nozzle and supply the mist to the nozzle, wherein the supplying apparatus comprises a liquid including a film material, wherein a mist supplier atomizes the liquid using an ultrasonic vibrator, because Faust teaches this arrangement can provide the coating in a such a way that the uniformity and anchoring of the coating on the substrate can be increased. (See Faust, Figs. 1 and 3 and col. 2, lines 5-10.)
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 4,425,869 to J. Richard Hull (hereinafter Hull) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070017442 A1 to Yamasaki et al (hereinafter Yamasaki) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 4,425,869 to J. Richard Hull (hereinafter Hull) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070017442 A1 to Yamasaki et al (hereinafter Yamasaki).
Regarding claim 10, Ogita does not explicitly teach an exposure device configured to illuminate the film formed on the substrate by the film forming apparatus, with a light in order to form a predetermined pattern on the substrate.
Hull is directed to deposition on a conveyed substrate.
Hull teaches a layer on a panel is hardened with exposure to UV light. (See Hull, col. 9, lines 15-30.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include exposure to UV light, because Hull teaches this process can be used to harden the coating on the substrate. (See Hull, col. 9, lines 15-30.)
Regarding claim 10, Ogita does not explicitly an exposure device configured to expose a predetermined pattern on the substrate by illuminating the substrate, on which the thin film is formed by the film forming apparatus, with light.
Yamasaki is directed to deposition on a conveyed substrate.
Yamasaki teaches an exposure device can be used to provide exposure to UV light. (See Yamasaki, paragraphs 26 and 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include an exposure device configured to expose a predetermined pattern on the substrate by illuminating the substrate, on which the thin film is formed by the film forming apparatus, with light, because Yamasaki teaches an exposure can be part of a thin film deposition apparatus. (See Yamasaki, paragraphs 26 and 42.)
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20020150679 to Minami et al (hereinafter Minami) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20020150679 to Minami et al (hereinafter Minami).
Regarding claim 15, Ogita does not explicitly teach the nozzle includes a movable member configured to change a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed.
Minami is directed to deposition on a substrate.
Minami teaches the nozzle includes a movable member (820) configured to change a spraying direction (630) in which the mist is sprayed. (See Minami, Abstract, Fig. 20, paragraphs 150-161.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the nozzle includes a movable member configured to change a spraying direction in which the mist is sprayed, because Minami teaches this structure allows the direction of the spraying to be changed. (See Minami, Abstract, Fig. 20, paragraphs 150-161.)
The previous rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) and US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20040148050 A1 to Jurgen Brosi (hereinafter Brosi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20010004916 A1 to Katsuya Ogita (hereinafter Ogita) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030139064 A1 to Nishida et al (hereinafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 20040148050 A1 to Jurgen Brosi (hereinafter Brosi).
Regarding claim 16, Ogita does not explicitly teach the exhaust unit including an exhaust port configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber, the exhaust unit being configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber via the exhaust port.
Nishida teaches the exhaust unit (F) including an exhaust port (opening of line including 12 attached to A) configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber (A), the exhaust unit being configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber (line ending at 14) via the exhaust port. (See Nishida, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the exhaust unit including an exhaust port configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber, the exhaust unit being configured to discharge a gas in an interior of the film forming chamber to an exterior of the film forming chamber via the exhaust port, because Nishida teaches this allows the exhaust to be removed from the interior of the film-forming chamber. (See Nishida, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 68.)
Regarding claim 16, Ogita does not explicitly teach an exhaust direction of the exhaust unit is changeable.
Brosi is directed to suction for removing particulate from areas of substrate.
Brosi teaches an exhaust direction of the exhaust unit is changeable. (See Brosi, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 56.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include wherein an exhaust direction of the exhaust unit is changeable, because Brosi teaches this allows the suction to be used in the desired area to remove the unwanted particles. (See Brosi, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph 56.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In a first set of rejections, US Pat. Num. 5,922,407 A1 to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess) was previously used to address the previous limitation : “a spraying port arranged above the part of the substrate that is inclined” added to claim 1. This limitation was deleted from claim 1 as a result this reference is no longer necessary and has been deleted from the rejection.
In a second set of rejections, US Pat. Num. 2,297,607 A1 to Charles Marvin Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn) was previously used to address the previous limitation : “a spraying port arranged above the part of the substrate that is inclined” added to claim 1. This limitation was deleted from claim 1 as a result this reference is no longer necessary and has been deleted from the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20080166487 to Steckelberg et al teaches angle between the input direction and exit direction is 40 o -110o. (See paragraph 28.) US Pat. Num. 4,321,299 to Frosch and Frazer et al teaches a portion of the flexible substrate having an inclined direction is 15-75o. (See Frazer, Figs. 1-2.)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights