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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 20 February 2026 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0032586 to Choi et al.
Regarding claim 1: Choi et al. disclose an apparatus capable of manufacturing a display device, the apparatus comprising: a chamber (102); a susceptor (138) positioned inside the chamber and configured to support (i.e. capable of supporting) a display substrate; and a spray portion (118) positioned to spray (i.e. capable of spraying) a deposition material toward the susceptor, the susceptor having a surface roughness of about 19 µm (~748 microinch) to about 23 µm (~905 microinch) (see, e.g., paras. 50-60, esp. para. 53).
With respect to claim 3, the susceptor comprises a first metal layer (202, see, e.g., paras. 50-60) and a first metal oxide layer (210, see, e.g., paras. 50-60) disposed in the first metal layer.
With respect to claim 4, the first metal layer comprises aluminum (see, e.g., paras. paras. 50-60).
With respect to claim 5, the first metal oxide layer comprises a same metal element as that of the first metal layer (e.g., aluminum).
With respect to claim 6, an oxygen content of the first metal oxide layer is higher than an oxygen content of the first metal layer (i.e. aluminum oxide will have a higher oxygen content than aluminum) (see, paras. 50-60).
With respect to claim 7, the first metal oxide layer comprises an oxide aluminum (see, paras. 50-60).
With respect to claim 8, the first metal layer comprises aluminum and the first metal oxide layer comprises aluminum oxide (see, e.g., paras. 50-60).
With respect to claim 9, a thickness of the first metal oxide layer is about 7
µ
m (i.e. ~276 microinches) to about 10 µm (~396 microinches) (see, e.g., para. 60).
With respect to claim 10, the first metal layer and the first metal oxide layer from a single body, see, Figs. 1-4.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above and further in view above of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0253285 to Kuibuira et al.
Choi et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Choi et al. fails to explicitly disclose the susceptor has a flatness of about 200 µm to about 500 µm.
Kuibira et al. disclose providing a susceptor having a flatness of about 200 µm (~0.2 mm) to about 500 µm (~0.5 mm) for the purpose of preventing gaps between a substrate/workpiece and the susceptor that prevent uniform transfer of heat and lead to variations in temperature in the substrate/workpiece (see, e.g., para. 72). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Choi et al. the susceptor having a flatness of about 200 µm (~0.2 mm) to about 500 µm (~0.5 mm) in order to prevent gaps between the substrate/workpiece and the susceptor that prevent uniform transfer of heat and lead to variations in temperature in the substrate/workpiece as taught by Kuibira et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the prior art does not teach the claimed range with the required specificity and that criticality has been provided as evidence of the same.
First, Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be using the procedure for evaluating claimed ranges that overlap or touch prior art ranges and a rejection has been made based on obviousness. In the instant case, the relied upon prior art range encompasses the claimed range and thus the claimed range is anticipated thereby and Applicant’s arguments regarding lack of obviousness and presences of “criticality” are unpersuasive.
Additionally, turning to the facts of the case with respect to criticality, even though not applicable to the anticipate rejection of claim 1, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments and evidence are directed to a method of using the claimed apparatus to perform a method to produce a product, wherein the method and product are not features of the claimed invention, which is an apparatus. Therefore, in the instant case the potential evidence is considered to be most relevant to how the apparatus is intended to be used, rather than actual inherent features the apparatus. Note: the apparatus is not limited to use with a particular method of use or product made therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0217291 discloses optimizing the surface characteristics of a susceptor.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 at (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