DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of electing Group II (claims 11-16 and 18-20) in the reply filed on June 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 17 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a canceled invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23, 2020.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and alkaline earth, metal” is read as “and alkaline earth[[,]] metal”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “between the flexible 5 substrate” is read as “between the flexible [[5 ]] substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hein et al. (US 2010/0266766 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hein teaches a method of processing a flexible substrate such as flexible displays, webs (1) ([0001], [0034], Fig. 7, claim 17), comprising: depositing a material on the flexible substrate, and guiding the flexible substrate such as web (1) having a layer of the deposited material over a post-processing roller as shown in Fig. 7 below, and providing a gas through a plurality of gas outlets (112) provided in a substrate facing surface (10) of the post processing roller into an interspace between the flexible substrate and the substrate facing surface as shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3B, 7 ([0091]-[0096]).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
744
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hein teaches wherein the gas is a passivation gas such as nitrogen (as admitted by Applicant passivation gas include nitrogen gas for example ([0033] of current specification pg pub US 2026/0043128 A1) for passivating the layer of deposited material ([0038] -[0040], [0107]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 13, Hein teaches wherein depositing the material includes depositing at least one material selected from the group consisting of alkali metal, lithium, and alkaline earth, metal on the flexible substrate ([0091]).
Regarding claim 15, Hein teaches wherein providing the gas through the plurality of gas outlets comprises providing a gas pressure pg of 1 mbar < pg < 10 mbar into the interspace between the flexible substrate and the substrate facing surface ([0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Hein teaches wherein providing the gas through the plurality of gas outlets comprises providing a gas pressure pg of 1 mbar < pg _ 10 mbar into the interspace between ([0041]).
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.
Claims 14,16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein et al. (US 2010/0266766 A1) as applied to claims 11-13, 15 and 19.
Regarding claim 14, Hein teaches wherein depositing the material on the flexible substrate is carried out in a vacuum processing chamber at a processing pressure range from 10-4 to 10-2 mbar, and wherein guiding the flexible substrate having the layer of the deposited material over the post-processing roller is carried out in a post-processing chamber at a post processing pressure range from 0.1 mbar to 500 mbar ([0035], [0041], in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) see MPEP 2144.05). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05). Hein recognizes the process pressures are adjusted by changing the coating method ([0041], [0109]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the process pressures to yield a desired coating ([0041]). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 16, Hein teaches wherein providing the gas through the plurality of gas outlets comprises providing a gas flow rate between 0.1 to 30 slmp (1 slmp (standard liter per minute) =1000 sccm, therefore 0.1 to 30 slmp is 100 to 30000 sccm) into the interspace between the flexible substrate and the substrate facing surface ([0040], claim 23, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) see MPEP 2144.05). Hein recognizes the gas flow rate is adjusted by changing the coating method ([0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the gas flow rate to yield a desired coating ([0040]). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 20, Hein teaches wherein providing the gas through the plurality of gas outlets comprises providing a gas flow rate between 0.05 to 50 slmp (1 slmp (standard liter per minute) =1000 sccm, therefore 0.05 to 50 slmp is 50 to 50000 sccm) into the interspace between the flexible substrate and the substrate facing surface ([0040]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05). Hein recognizes the gas flow rate is adjusted by changing the coating method ([0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the gas flow rate to yield a desired coating ([0040]). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein et al. (US 2010/0266766 A1) as applied to claims 11-13, 15 and 19, further in view of Boyapati et al. (US 2018/0019197 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hein teaches a method for coating a substrate comprising forming a passivation film after coating with argon or nitrogen as a post-processing treatment ([0040]). However, Hein et al. do not disclose the gas is carbon dioxide, but teach the gas is nitrogen for example. carbon dioxide and nitrogen are considered functionally equivalent feed gases in passivation ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute carbon dioxide for the nitrogen gas disclosed by Hein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 5712721295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights