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.
Claims 1-10, 14 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.
Claim 1, line 1, “Set comprising” is unclear. Should this be “An apparatus comprising”.
Claim 1, line 7, the phrase “being intended” is unclear. Is it intended? It is suggested to remove this phrase.
Claim 1, line 8, the phrase “sensibly a shape” is unclear. Is sensibly meant to be approximate or essentially?
Claim 1, line 16, the term “soft” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim1, line 17, the term “hard” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 3, lines 2 and 3, the term “sensibly” both occurrences is unclear. Is sensibly meant to be approximate or essentially?
Claim 4, line 2, the term “soft” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 5, lines 2, 4, the term “soft” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 6, line 2, the term “hard” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 7, lines 4 and 5, “the material” lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested to write this as “a material of the material evaporation device”.
Claim 8, lines 5-7, all occurrences of “the material” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 2, “the material” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10, line 2, “the set” is unclear. Should this be “the apparatus”?
Claim 10, line 3, the term “hard” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 14, line 8, the term “sensibly” is unclear. Is sensibly meant to be approximate or essentially?
Claim 14, line 16, the term “soft” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 14, line 17, the term “hard” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chalk (U.S. Pat. 8,702,572).
At the outset the language “configured to be used in a physical vapor deposition machine (10), the physical vapor deposition machine (10) comprising a vacuum container (12), an ion beam gun (19) and a support member (16), the support member (16) comprising at least one hole, the at least one hole being intended to receive a substrate, a shape of the substrate (33) having sensibly a shape of the at least one hole, the ion beam gun (19) being configured to generate an ion beam toward the support member (16),”… “being configured to obstruct a gap (32) between the at least one hole and the substrate (17) when the substrate is placed in the at least one hole and the obstruction device (33) is placed on the substrate (17)” is viewed as intended use for the obstruction and is given no weight.
The remaining structure will be addressed. Specifically Chalk teaches an obstruction device (33) comprising a casing forming an enclosed chamber, the casing being made of a soft and deformable material, the enclosed chamber being filled with hard elements. (Column 1 lines 60-65)
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.
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) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusato (JP 2013-217962 A) in view of Kurata et al. (JP 2006-267848 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Furusato teaches a method for coating a substrate (17), the method comprising: a step (601) of placing the substrate (17) in a hole of a support member (16) of a physical vapor deposition machine (10), and a step (603) of generating an ion beam from an ion beam gun (19) located under the support member (16). (Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0020-0027)
The difference between Furusato and claim 11 is that a step (602) of placing an obstruction device (33) on the substrate (17) to obstruct a gap between the hole and the substrate (33) is not discussed.
Regarding a step (602) of placing an obstruction device (33) on the substrate (17) to obstruct a gap between the hole and the substrate (33) (Claim 11), Kurata et al. teach placing an obstruction device (33) on the substrate (17) to obstruct a gap between the hole and the substrate (33). (Fig. 4, See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Furusato teaches the method also comprising: a step (604) of diffusion of a vapor containing a material. (Paragraph 0022)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
Regarding claim 13, Furusato teaches the material being metal oxides and/or silica. (Paragraph 0022)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kurata is that it allows for reducing time for treating. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Furusato by utilizing the features of Kurata et al. because it allows for reducing time for treating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-10 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter in combination with “the obstruction device (33) being configured to obstruct a gap (32) between the at least one hole and the substrate when the substrate (17) is placed in the at least one hole and the obstruction device (33) is placed on the substrate (17) the obstruction device (33) comprising a casing forming an enclosed chamber, the casing being made of a soft and deformable material, the enclosed chamber being filled with hard elements.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights