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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 23 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the difference between the species is not significant. This is not found persuasive because whether or not a difference between species is “significant” is not the criteria for identifying species and requiring an election therebetween. If Applicant were to admit on the record that the species are “patentably obvious” or “patentably indistinct” over one another, withdrawal of the requirement might be in order. Otherwise, rejoinder will be considered if and when appropriate according to the guidelines set forth in the MPEP. Also see requirement mailed on 5 May 2026 which addresses the issue.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 1 September 2021 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 1 September 2021 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: technological devices and at least one further device in claims 1 and 2 which have been interpreted as a crucible, evaporator, vaporizer, a magnetron, another source of mist, vapor or spirited particles, a curing/hardening/drying device, plasma source, a high-density plasma source, means for oxidation, lamp, laser and equivalents thereto, e.g., as set forth in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document for a foreign filing and are replete with wording that is not in line with current US practice.
In order to expedite examination, Examiner has interpreted the claimed invention to the best of their ability and assumed the claims were intended to read as following, or similar, and has examined accordingly. In general, Examiner notes that individual features should be referred to consistently throughout the claim set once introduced in order to conform with U.S. practice. See MPEP 2173.
Claim 1. “A processing line for depositing a thin film on a substrate, comprising: a plurality of rotatable drums said plurality of drums installed on at least one carriage, or a plurality of carriages with at least one rotatable drum installed on each carriage, said plurality of drums or carriages are substantially parallel, respectively, and the distance between respective central axes of said drums is equal to a sum of the radiuses of the plurality of drums plus a minimum clearing distance between said plurality of drums; at least one processing chamber; and a special processing zone applicable to at least two rotatable drums of the plurality of rotatable drums, said special processing zone comprising a technological device for simultaneously deposition coating material on substrates supported on the at least to rotatable drums of the plurality of rotatable drums”
Claim 2 “wherein at least one other technological device is disposed in the special processing zone for further treatment of the substrates, said technological device and said at least one other technological device being disposed at different positions in the special processing zone”
Claim 3 “wherein at least one of said technological device and said at least one other technological device is disposed at a bottom of the special processing zone and the other one of said technological device and said at least one other technological device may disposed at the top of the special processing zone”
Claim 4, “wherein the technological device for depositing coating materials is designed depositing one or more metals”
Claim 5 “wherein the at least one other technological device is for further treatment of the substrate is designed for hardening, curing, or oxidizing”
Claim 6 “wherein the technological device is an evaporator or magnetron, and the at least one other technological device is an activated source of jet gas for generating plasma”
Claim 7 “wherein the technological device and the at least one other technological device are disposed opposite from one another”
Claim 8 “the technological device and the at least one other technological device are capable of treating the substrates simultaneously”
Claim 9 “ the technological device and the at least one other technological device are designed for depositing different coating materials to form composite or multilayer coatings”
Claim 10 “wherein the technological device and the at least one other technological device for depositing coating materials on the substrate are disposed within a single compartment of the processing line”
Claim 11 “wherein the plurality of rotatable drums are configured to allow for flipping of the substrate in one or several positions along the processing line to deposit coatings on different sides of the substrates”
Claim 1 recites “a special processing zone”. The term “special” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “special” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 11 includes the phrase “configured to allow for concentric rotation of the substrate”. The function defined by “concentric rotation” is unclear, as is the configuration enabling the same. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested. Additionally, Applicant is requested to review all claim language for compliance with US practice and consult the MPEP further if further guidance regarding claim construction is necessary.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 5,618,388 to Seeser et al. Also see U.S. Patent No. 4,777,908 to Temple et al. which is incorporated in its entirety in Seeser et al.
Seeser et al. discloses a processing line for depositing a thin film on a substrate, comprising: a plurality of rotatable drums (see, e.g., Fig. 36, 14) said plurality of drums installed on at least one carriage (16)), or a plurality of carriages with at least one rotatable drum installed on each carriage, said plurality of drums or carriages are substantially parallel, respectively, and the distance between respective central axes of said drums is equal to a sum of the radiuses of the plurality of drums plus a minimum clearing distance between said plurality of drums; at least one processing chamber (232); and a special processing zone (e.g. inside 232 and areas fluidically connected therewith) applicable to at least two rotatable drums of the plurality of rotatable drums, said special processing zone comprising a technological device (231) for simultaneously deposition coating material on substrates supported on the at least to rotatable drums of the plurality of rotatable drums.
With respect to claim 2, in Seeser et al., at least one other technological device (e.g. 236 and 234) is disposed in the special processing zone for further treatment of the substrates, said technological device and said at least one other technological device being disposed at different positions in the special processing zone.
With respect to claim 3, in Seeser et al., at least one of said technological device and said at least one other technological device may be disposed at a bottom of the special processing zone and the other one of said technological device and said at least one other technological device may be disposed at the top of the special processing zone. See, e.g., Fig. 38 for alternative arrangement with respect to Fig. 36.
With respect to claim 4, in Seeser et al., the technological device for depositing coating materials is designed for (i.e. capable of) depositing one or more metals. See, e.g., column 24, rows 20-66. Regarding intended use, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 5, in Seeser et al., the at least one other technological device is for further treatment of the substrate is designed for (i.e. capable of) hardening, curing, or oxidizing. See, e.g., column 24, rows 20-66. Regarding intended use, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 6, in Seeser et al., the technological device is an evaporator or magnetron, and the at least one other technological device is an activated source of jet gas for generating plasma. See, e.g., column 24, rows 20-66.
With respect to claim 7, in Seeser et al., the technological device and the at least one other technological device are disposed opposite from one another (i.e. on opposite sides of the processing chamber). See., e.g., Fig. 36.
With respect to claim 8, in Seeser et al., the technological device and the at least one other technological device are capable of treating the substrates simultaneously (i.e. on opposite sides of the processing chamber). See., e.g., Fig. 36. Regarding intended use, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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).
With respect to claim 9, in Seeser et al., the technological device and the at least one other technological device is designed for (i.e. capable of) depositing different coating materials to form composite or multilayer coatings. See, e.g., column 24, rows 20-66. Regarding intended use, it is noted that the courts have ruled that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 10, in Seeser et al., the technological device and the at least one other technological device for depositing coating materials on the substrate are disposed within a single compartment (i.e. the processing chamber volume) of the processing line.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeser et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0003767 to Kim et al.
Seeser et al. discloses the processing line substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Seeser et al. fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of rotatable drums are configured to allow for flipping of the substrate in one or several positions along the processing line to deposit coatings on different sides of the substrates.
Kim et al. discloses a processing line including drums configured to allow for flipping of the substrate in one or several positions along the processing line to deposit coatings on different sides of the substrates for the purpose of providing for increased throughput (see, e.g., abstract, Fig. 6 and paras. 35-37).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the plurality of rotatable drums are configured to allow for flipping of the substrate in one or several positions along the processing line to deposit coatings on different sides of the substrates in order to provide increased throughput as taught by Kim et al.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 6,485,616 disclose a processing line with an in-line configuration for improved capacity and uniformity. USP 10,385,446 and USP Pubs. 2016/0333467; 2022/0145450 disclose similar processing lines processing line with a plurality of paths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights