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 .
The amendment filed 6/26/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 5-7 have been added. Claims 1-7 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 6/26/26, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) in combination with JP 2016-023128 further in combination with Yamashita et al. (2017/0044662) further in combination with WO 2011/021622.
Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) teaches a system and method for production of graphene by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (abstract). Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) teaches a reel-to-reel processing (claimed device for delivering (16) and winding substrate (18)), in a reaction chamber (12) (claimed processing vessel for generating plasma) on a metal substrate (14) ([0013]-[0019],[0029]-[0034] and Fig. 1).
Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) fails to teach the substrate being joule heated.
JP 2016-023128 teaches forming graphene films using plasma whereby the metal base is heated by a joule heat device (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) plasma process for forming graphene by including a joule heating device for heating the substrate as evidenced by JP 2016-023128 with the expectation of producing the graphene films.
Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) in combination with JP 2016-023128 fails to teach the position and/or length of the opening is set in relation to the winding speed of the joule heated metal substrate and a substrate cover spaced from the substrate.
Yamashita et al. (2017/0044662) teaches a thin film forming device whereby a substate (2) travels between a pay-out roll (3) and a take-up roll (4) and is coated while traveling around a drum (5). Yamashita et al. (2017/0044662) teaches components (82) having a mask portion (85a) (claimed mask) having openings (85) (claimed openings) to allow for film formation on the substrate (2). The length of the openings in the travel direction of the substate (2) is suitable set according to the thickness of the thin film formed on the substrate (2) and is related to the travel speed of the substrate [0042].
WO 2011/021622 teaches a forming pattern film including a vapor deposition apparatus (501a) including plasma methods whereby a mask (9) can move in the direction of the belt-like base (301a) (claimed substrate) and not in contact with each other (claimed spaced apart) (Fig. 4 and pg. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sinton et al. (2014/0255621) in combination with JP 2016-023128 process to include a mask being spaced from the substrate as evidenced by WO 2011/021622 and to set the cover substrate according to the winding speed of the substrate as evidenced by Yamashita et al. (2017/0044662) with the expectation of not damaging the substrate due to contact thereof.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7, Yamashita et al. (2017/0044662) teaches the length of the openings in the travel direction of the substate (2) is suitable set according to the thickness of the thin film formed on the substrate (2) and is related to the travel speed of the substrate [0042].
Regarding claim 1-4 and 7, as noted above, the length of the opening is related to the travel speed of the substrate to control thickness of the coating and the openings “position” would also factor into controlling the thickness and hence would be suggested.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the mask is moveable and hence has a mechanism configured to change the position of the opening which also correlates to the length of the opening. The slide mechanism would be met as the mask is moved or “slide” along the direction of the substrate.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach the substrate cover is disposed between the plasma generation device and the metal substrate and is spaced apart from the metal substrate.
WO 2011/021622 teaches this as detailed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights