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 26-28 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 26 recites the limitation "a substrate including a conductive oxide layer in thermal connection to a heater" in the claim. It is unclear if the heater is a part of the apparatus or not, as claim elements must be positively recited (MPEP 2173.05 (e)). Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200251655 to McGraw.
Claim 12: McGraw discloses an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) deposition device comprising: one or more depositors (402 [delivery aperture], Fig. 4), wherein at least one of the one or more depositors comprises: one or more delivery apertures (402); one or more exhaust apertures (403 [exhaust aperture]), wherein at least one of the one or more exhaust apertures (403) is fluidly coupled to at least one delivery aperture (403) of the one or more delivery apertures (403, para. [0080]); and
a substrate (309/414, Fig. 3, 4), wherein the one or more delivery apertures (402) are configured to eject a gas jet including a vapor precursor onto the substrate (414) causing a chemical reaction between the vapor precursor and the substrate (414, para. [0083]).
Claim 14: McGraw does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured to form a single-molecule thick layer of sorbate on the substrate via a chemical reaction between the vapor precursor and the substrate.
Yet the apparatus of McGraw has the structure to perform as necessary (para. [0056]). The courts have held 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 15: McGraw discloses wherein the one or more exhaust apertures (403, Fig. 4, McGraw) are configured to withdraw a molar flow of gas larger than a molar flow of the gas ejected by the one or more delivery apertures (para. [0080]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200251655 to McGraw in view of US 20230070274 to Nozawa.
Claim 1: McGraw discloses a vapor deposition system comprising: an array of depositors (402/403, Fig. 4) in fluid communication with an ambient inert gas that are held in proximity to a substrate (414 [substrate]) carried on a conveyance such that the substrate and depositors move relative to each other during deposition (para. [0078]);
wherein each depositor (402/403) has one or more delivery apertures (402 [delivery aperture]) that are configured to eject a gas jet including a vapor precursor that chemically reacts with the substrate (414) surface (para. [0083]) to form a single-molecule thick layer of electroluminescent compound on the substrate (para. [0056]); and
wherein each depositor (402/403) has one or more exhaust apertures (403 [exhaust apertures]) configured to cumulatively withdraw a greater molar flow of gas than is cumulatively ejected by the delivery apertures in the same depositor (para. [0080]).
However McGraw does not disclose (claim 1) the conveyance is heated; (claim 2) wherein a temperature of the substrate surface exceeds a temperature of the depositor; (claim 3) wherein the temperature of the substrate surface is between 100°C and 200°C; (claim 4) wherein the temperature of the substrate surface is between 60°C and 180°C.
Nozawa discloses (claim 1) the chuck (307 [stage], Fig. 1) is heated (308a [heater]); (claim 2) wherein a temperature of the substrate (W [substrate]) surface exceeds a temperature of the depositor (para. [0032] where temperatures are controlled by a controller); (claim 3) wherein the temperature of the substrate surface is between 100°C and 200°C (para. [0046]); (claim 4) wherein the temperature of the substrate surface is between 60°C and 180°C (para. [0046]); for the purpose of being an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Nozawa with motivation to be an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers.
Claim 5: The apparatus of McGraw in view of Nozawa discloses wherein the pressure of the ambient inert gas is between 20 Torr and 300 Torr (para. [0080], McGraw).
Claim 11: The apparatus of McGraw in view of Nozawa discloses wherein the deposited material forms a continuous monolayer on a region of substrate acted on by a depositor (402, para. [0080], [0056]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGraw in view of Nozawa as applied to claims 1-5, 11 above, and further in view of US 20210054495 to McGraw (“McGraw’495”).
Claim 6: The apparatus of McGraw in view of Nozawa does not disclose wherein the depositor array is held between 20 µm and 60 µm from the substrate.
McGraw’495 discloses and wherein the depositor array (301 [nozzle array], Fig. 22-23A) is held between 20 µm and 60 µm from the substrate (302 [substrate], para. [0151]) for the purpose of adjusting the fly height such that the delivery gas flow is less than or equal to an exhaust flow from the exhaust channel (para. [0150]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the overlapping range as taught by McGraw’495 with motivation to adjust the fly height such that the delivery gas flow is less than or equal to an exhaust flow from the exhaust channel.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGraw in view of Nozawa as applied to claims 1-5, 11 above, and further in view of US 20180342675 to Xu.
Claims 7-8: The apparatus of McGraw in view of Nozawa does not disclose (claim 7) wherein the delivery or exhaust apertures have a minor width between 5 µm and 50 µm; (claim 8) wherein each depositor has a width of between 100 µm and 1000 µm.
However Xu discloses (claim 7) wherein the delivery or exhaust apertures (“exhaust aperture”) have a minor width between 5 µm and 50 µm (para. [0014]); (claim 8) wherein each depositor (DE spacing of depositor) has a width of between 100 µm and 1000 µm (para. [0014]), for the purpose of providing improved material utilization efficiency and relaxed fly height tolerances, while achieving acceptable printing resolution and feature uniformity (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations and range requirements above as taught by Xu with motivation to provide improved material utilization efficiency and relaxed fly height tolerances, while achieving acceptable printing resolution and feature uniformity.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGraw as applied to claims 12, 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20150303397 to Pan.
Claim 9: The apparatus of McGraw in view of Nozawa does not disclose wherein the vapor precursor comprises an organometallic compound capable of undergoing pyrolysis and chemically binding to the substrate.
However Pan discloses wherein the vapor precursor comprises an organometallic compound capable of undergoing pyrolysis and chemically binding to the substrate (para. [0079], [0062]) for the purpose of providing such materials for use in OLEDS (para. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Pan with motivation to provide such materials for use in OLEDS.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGraw as applied to claims 12, 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20160126480 to Wesemann.
Claim 10: The apparatus of McGraw in view of Nozawa does not disclose wherein the deposited material is affixed to the substrate via one or more of ether groups, thioether groups, and acetylthio groups.
Wesemann discloses wherein the deposited material is affixed to the substrate via one or more of ether groups, thioether groups, and acetylthio groups (para. [0021], [0074]) for the purpose of providing metal complexes which are suitable as emitters, as matrix materials, as electron conductors or in other functions for use in OLEDs, which have a high thermal stability (para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Wesemann with motivation to provide metal complexes which are suitable as emitters, as matrix materials, as electron conductors or in other functions for use in OLEDs, which have a high thermal stability.
Claim(s) 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGraw as applied to claims 12, 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20230070274 to Nozawa.
Claim 13: McGraw does not disclose further comprising a heated substrate chuck configured to hold and provide heat to the substrate.
Nozawa discloses further comprising a heated substrate chuck (308a [heater] of 307 [stage], Fig. 1) configured to hold and provide heat to the substrate (W [substrate]), for the purpose of being an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Nozawa with motivation to be an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers.
Claims 16-17: McGraw does not disclose (claim 16) wherein a temperature of the substrate is higher than a temperature of the vapor precursor material; (claim 17) wherein a temperature of the substrate is between 100°C and 200°C.
Nozawa discloses (claim 16) wherein a temperature of the substrate is higher than a temperature of the vapor precursor material (para. [0032] where temperatures are controlled by a controller); (claim 17) wherein a temperature of the substrate is between 100°C and 200°C (para. [0046]) for the purpose of being an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Nozawa with motivation to be an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers.
Claims 18-25: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200251655 to McGraw in view of US 20230070274 to Nozawa, and further in view of US 20200295277 to Fitzgerald, US 20210054495 to McGraw (“McGraw’495”).
Claim 26: McGraw discloses a vapor deposition system comprising: a substrate (309/414, Fig. 3, 4); and a nozzle block (307 [heated nozzles], Fig. 3) facing the substrate (309), comprising:
at least one delivery aperture (402 [delivery aperture], Fig. 4) configured to eject an organic vapor (para. [0080]); and at least one exhaust aperture (403 [exhaust aperture]) proximate to the at least one delivery aperture (402), configured to create a deposition zone by intaking an ambient confining gas and at least a portion of the ejected organic vapor (para. [0080]);
wherein a total volumetric flow rate of the ejected organic vapor is less than the total volumetric flow rate that the at least one exhaust aperture intakes (para. [0080]); wherein the ambient confining gas has a pressure between 20 Torr and 300 Torr (para. [0080]).
However McGraw does not disclose the substrate in thermal connection to a heater, wherein the heater is configured to heat the substrate to between 60°C and 200°C.
Nozawa discloses the substrate (W (substrate], Fig. 1) in thermal connection to a heater (308a [heater]), wherein the heater (308a) is configured to heat the substrate (W) to between 60°C and 200°C (para. [0046]) for the purpose of being an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Nozawa with motivation to be an appropriate temperature for vapor deposition polymerization of raw material monomers.
However McGraw in view of Nozawa does not disclose (claim 26) the substrate including a conductive oxide layer; (claim 27) wherein the organic vapor is configured to condense on the substrate or conductive oxide to form an electroluminescent film; (claim 28) wherein the electroluminescent film comprises a monolayer.
Fitzgerald discloses (claim 26) the substrate (“substrate”) including a conductive oxide layer (ITO, para. [0276]); (claim 27) wherein the organic vapor is configured to condense on the substrate or conductive oxide to form an electroluminescent film (para. [0004], [0102], [0110-0114]); (claim 28) wherein the electroluminescent film comprises a monolayer (para. [0005], [0106]); for the purpose of being incorporated into a wide variety of electronic component modules (or units) that can be incorporated into a variety of electronic products or intermediate components (para. [0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Fitzgerald with motivation to be incorporated into a wide variety of electronic component modules (or units) that can be incorporated into a variety of electronic products or intermediate components.
However McGraw in view of Nozawa, Fitzgerald does not disclose and wherein the nozzle block is positioned between 20 µm and 60 µm from the substrate.
McGraw’495 discloses and wherein the nozzle block (301 [nozzle array], Fig. 22-23A) is positioned between 20 µm and 60 µm from the substrate (302 [substrate], para. [0151]) for the purpose of adjusting the fly height such that the delivery gas flow is less than or equal to an exhaust flow from the exhaust channel (para. [0150]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the overlapping range as taught by McGraw’495 with motivation to adjust the fly height such that the delivery gas flow is less than or equal to an exhaust flow from the exhaust channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights