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 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:
“one or more components configured for” in claim 14.
“moving components configured for moving” in claim 15.
“feeding components configured for feeding” in claim 16-17.
The term “component for” is listed in MPEP 2181.I.A as a non-structural generic placeholder. The additional reference to “moving” or “feeding” do not add anything to the generic component.
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.
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 14-33 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.
In claim 14, the limitations “components configured for receiving a plurality of precursor rolls”; “moving component configured for moving”; and “feeding component configured for feeding” each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not further describe the “components configured for receiving” the rolls; the “moving components configured for moving”; or the “feeding components configured for feeding”. The precursor rolls 401 and 403 are shown, but there is no reference number or figure showing the component for receiving. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 15-33 incorporate the issues of parent claim 14 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 14-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (US 2012/0264075) in view of KIMURA et al. (JP 11124766; citations to machine translation).
Regarding claims 14-17, and 26,
WANG teaches a roll-to-roll reactor for solar cells abstract. The roll to roll process includes a winding and an unwinding chamber that receives a substrate roll that is then fed through a heating section. The winding and unwinding parts correspond to the feeding and moving components. The heat treatment oven can heat to temperature of up to 1000°C abstract (capable of pyrolyzing a composite film - above 400°C). WANG does not teach processing a plurality of rolls concurrently using one or more components for receiving and feeding material rolls. However, generally the duplication of parts is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.04.VI. B. In this instance a duplication of parts doubles the throughput capacity of the apparatus and benefiting from an economy of scale.
In addition, KIMURA teaches that simultaneous heat treatment of multiple webs using a single heat treatment device is known abstract. The reference further points out that when processing multiple webs, the traveling speed can individually be controlled depending on their compositions to obtain a corresponding total heat treatment [0004]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple unwinders and process multiple rolls in WANG to increase throughput in addition to maintaining the ability to process different types of rolls by individually controlling traveling speed of each roll.
Regarding claims 18-19,
WANG teaches that valves 107A and 107B are only opened to introduce inert or reaction gas if the annealing/reaction is not to be conducted under a vacuum [0018] (implicitly teaching the chambers S1, M1, M2, and S2 are vacuum). According to applicant, reducing atmospheres include vacuums and inert gases, specification [0091] and present claim 19. In addition, the examiner notes that the apparatus claim is limited to the structures and not the intended use. The same valves that supply inert gas would be capable of supplying a reducing gas and therefore are a structure that meets the claim limitation. Likewise, the valves can be opened and closed to only flow inert/reducing gas in the first chamber while drawing a vacuum on the remaining chambers.
Regarding claims 20-21,
WANG teaches a heat treatment zone S1 in addition to modular buffer sections M1 and M2 that help with thermal control [0017] (plurality of temperature zones at different temperatures).
Regarding claims 22 and 25,
WANG teaches a cooling zone S2 includes cooling elements with cold water or cold gas (forced cooling) [0017].
Regarding claim 23,
As noted above, chamber S2 is located within the chamber connected to valves 107A and 107B. Accordingly, the cooling chamber is located within a vacuum or can be provided with inert or reducing gas through the valves.
Regarding claim 24,
WANG teaches the cooling elements 103 are controlled by thermocouples 104, [0017]. Accordingly, the cooling can be controlled to satisfy “a particular cooling criteria”.
Regarding claim 27,
WANG teaches the apparatus includes an unwinding chamber that receives a substrate roll that is then fed through a heating section S1 and a cooling section S2 [0017] (cooling is after heating).
Regarding claim 28,
WANG teaches the substrate transports over 10 meters [0023]. The reference does not teach the heat treatment oven as 12-18 meters. Although only a portion of the length of WANG is attributable to the heating the open-ended length of “over 10 meters” allows for an arbitrary length which makes the heating portion also an arbitrary length. Accordingly, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Alternatively, the difference in the length of the reactor/heating section of WANG does not change the operation of the prior art device and is prima facie obvious as a change in size/proportion MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claim 29 and 30,
WANG teaches a heat treatment oven that transports over 10 meters [0023] and further teaches speed of the film through the oven can be changed [0007] but does not expressly teach a residence time of the substrate in the oven. The residence time is a result effective variable and set according to reaction time and substrate delivery speed according to WANG [0007]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to configure the system to provide a desired residence time within the claimed range by ordinary experimentation to find workable parameters.
In addition, KIMURA specifically teaches different rolls can be simultaneously processed at different speeds as the situation dictates [0004].
Regarding claim 31,
WANG teaches the entire roll-to-roll process is enclosed in a system that is flushed with inert gas and drawn to a vacuum [0018].
Regarding claims 32 and 33,
WANG teaches the apparatus is further divided into a winding chamber, heating and cooling chamber (S1, M1, M2 and S2), and winding chamber with shutters 111A and 111B (a plurality of at least partially isolated atmosphere chambers), [0018].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712