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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 19-26, drawn to an apparatus) in the reply, filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/08/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the second slot is configured to remove excess material in a direction towards a printing direction of the nozzle array, and the first slot is configured to output the gas in a direction opposite the printing direction” of Claim 19 and “wherein the second slot is pointed towards the printing direction of the nozzle array, and the first slot is pointed in a direction opposite the printing direction” of Claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s), see the details in the 112 rejection below. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “deposit material onto a substrate” of Claim 19 should be:
“deposit a material onto a substrate”.
(2) The “output gas to interrupt” of Claim 19 should be:
“output a gas to interrupt”.
(3) The “removed by the gas of the first slot” of Claim 19 would have a better form if amended to be:
“removed by the gas outputted from the first slot”, see also the “gas outputted from” of Claim 25.
(4) The “the nozzle array is part of” of Claim 20 should be:
“the nozzle array is a part of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
(1) In regards to the “a display disposed on a substrate” of Claim 26,
The applicant claims an apparatus, which is the “printing device”. The substrate is not a structural part constituting the claimed apparatus, rather it is a product to be processed by the apparatus. Therefore, substrate related features, such as physical/chemical/electrical property of the substrate and/or a feature formed on the substrate, do not add a patentable weight to the claimed apparatus.
Consequently, when a prior art merely teaches a substrate, it will be considered meeting the limitation, see the MPEP citations below.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (See MPEP §2114).
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 19-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “sweep it towards a second slot disposed on a second side of the nozzle array; and the second slot disposed on a second side of the nozzle array, wherein the second slot is configured to remove excess material deposited towards the substrate and to evacuate material removed by the gas of the first slot” of Claim 19 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what the pronoun “it” means. The Office does not recommend to use a pronoun, as it may indicate any prior recited limitations.
Second, it is not clear what difference is required between the firstly cited “a second side” and the secondly cited “a second side”.
Third, it is not clear what the “excess material deposited towards the substrate” means. Does the “excess material” mean the material deposited towards the substrate OR a portion of the material that fails to be deposited on the substrate?
If the material is already deposited on the substrate, why it is called “excess material” and why it should be removed?
Fourth, the “material” in “evacuate material removed by the gas of the first slot” is not clear. Does it mean prior recited “excess material” or another material?
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“sweep an excess material of the material, that fails to be deposited on the substrate, towards a second slot disposed on a second side of the nozzle array; wherein the second slot is configured to evacuate the excess material removed by the gas outputted from the first slot”.
(2) The “wherein the second slot is configured to remove excess material in a direction towards a printing direction of the nozzle array, and the first slot is configured to output the gas in a direction opposite the printing direction” of Claim 19 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what difference is required between the prior cited “excess material” of Claim 19 and the “excess material” in “remove excess material in a direction”. Does it mean “the excess material”?
Second, it is not clear what the “a direction towards a printing direction” means, specifically the “towards a printing direction” is not clear. Does the “direction” mean the same as the “printing direction” of the applicants’ Fig. 4?
If so;
According to the applicants’ Fig. 4, the vacuum exhaust slot is located at the left side of the labels “nozzle array” and “Backward pointing air knife”, therefore, because of the pressure gradient toward the vacuum exhaust, the supplied gases would have flowed FROM the right side having the nozzle array and air knife TO the left side having the vacuum exhaust, which means the removal direction is in a direction opposite to the “printing direction”. It contradicts to the recited “a direction towards a printing direction”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Third, the applicants’ disclosures are devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function.
The applicants’ specification merely repeats the same language, which includes “first slot” outputting the gas in a direction opposite the printing direction and “second slot” removing the excess material in a direction towards a printing direction, and further the applicants’ Fig. 4 only provides a bottom view merely showing the slots on the bottom surface, thus the disclosures fail to provide detailed structural configurations how the first and second slots are shaped to perform the functions.
Does each slot require an angle to flow the gas in the printing direction or opposite direction?
Emphasized herein, when a slot is provided on a surface, it means the slot is formed by vertically penetrating the surface. Therefore, at the slot on the surface, the gas is supplied or withdrawn in a vertical direction, and then, around the slots, the gas flows along the bottom surface in a horizontal direction.
For the purpose of examination,
As shown in the applicants’ Fig. 4, when a first slot coupled to a gas source is provided on a first position and a second slot coupled to an evacuation source is provided on a second position, it will be considered meeting the recited “directions” above.
(3) The “wherein the second slot is pointed towards the printing direction of the nozzle array, and the first slot is pointed in a direction opposite the printing direction” of Claim 23 is also not clear.
As discussed in the “second” and “third” reasons of the item (2) or claim 19 above, the “pointed towards the printing direction” and “pointed in a direction” are also not clear.
Further, it is not clear what difference is required between “a direction opposite the printing direction” of Claim 19 and “a direction opposite the printing direction” of Claim 23. Does it mean “the direction”?
For the purpose of examination,
As shown in the applicants’ Fig. 4, when a first slot coupled to a gas source is provided on a first position and a second slot coupled to an evacuation source is provided on a second position, it will be considered meeting the recited “directions” above.
(4) The “wherein a removal rate of the excess material removed by the second slot is at least one selected from a group consisting of: a 90% removal rate, a 95% removal rate, a 98% removal rate, a 99% removal rate, and a 100% removal rate” of Claim 24 is not clear, because it is not clear how the percentage removal rate is determined.
The applicants’ disclosures are devoid of adequate structure to obtain the claimed “% removal rate” and rather merely repeat the same language.
It is considered that the removal rate can be affected by various conditions, such as a pump capacity, flow rate of the supplied gas, dimension of the slot, or positional relation among the nozzles, or etc. Depending on the conditions, the removal rate would have been differentiated. Thus, without considering the conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, when an apparatus of a prior art is capable of removing the excess material, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(5) Similarly, the “wherein a flow rate of gas outputted from the first slot is at least one selected from a group consisting of: a 90% flow rate, a 95% flow rate, a 98% flow rate, a 99% flow rate, and a 100% flow rate” of Claim 25 is not clear, because it is not clear how the percentage flow rate is determined.
The applicants’ disclosures are devoid of adequate structure to obtain the claimed “% flow rate” and rather merely repeat the same language.
Further, it is not clear what reference flow rate is based when calculating each recited percentage flow rate. The recited percentage flow rate is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Still furthermore, it is not also clear what difference is required between “the gas of the first slot” of Claim 19 and “gas outputted from the first slot” of Claim 23. Does it mean “the gas”?
For the purpose of examination, when an apparatus of a prior art is capable of providing a gas through the first slot, in other words, the gas has a flow rate, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(6) The “at least one or the plurality of nozzles”, “one or more of the nozzles of the nozzle array” and “the nozzle array” of Claim 26 are not clear.
First, in the claim 26, they are all the same features or different features? If different, what structural difference is required?
Second, the claim 26 is dependent from the claim 19. Claim 19 only recites “at least one nozzle of the nozzle array”. It is not clear what difference is required between the features of the claims 19 and 26.
For the purpose of examination,
The features of claim 26 will be examined inclusive of “the at least one nozzle of the nozzle array”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 19-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinn et al. (US 20190256968, hereafter ‘968).
Regarding to Claim 19, ‘968 teaches:
Print head (title, the claimed “A printing device”);
Organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) is a technique for producing precisely patterned organic thin films on a substrate, and an array of one or more nozzles (Fig. 3, [0065], see also Figs. 4 and 7, the claimed “comprising: a nozzle array configured to deposit material onto a substrate”);
confinement gas may enter from the edges of the depositor 406 to push surplus organic vapor into the exhaust channels ([0067], see also “confinement flow to block the spread of surplus organic vapor underneath the nozzle array and sweep it into exhaust channels for removal” of [0066]), and the confinement gas distribution nozzles 506 ([0091], the claimed “a first slot disposed on a first side of the nozzle array, and wherein the first slot is configured to output gas to interrupt a path of the material from at least one nozzle of the nozzle array and sweep it towards a second slot disposed on a second side of the nozzle array”);
exhaust apertures 402 that withdraw the delivery and confinement flows, along with excess organic vapor, from the deposition zone… Molecules of organic vapor 405 that fail to adhere to the substrate may be flushed away from the substrate through the exhaust aperture ([0067], see also [0066] above, the claimed “and the second slot disposed on a second side of the nozzle array, wherein the second slot is configured to remove excess material deposited towards the substrate and to evacuate material removed by the gas of the first slot”);
a device to move the substrate 502 relative to the print head a direction orthogonal to both the long axis of the COP head 501 and the substrate normal… Alternately, the COP head 501 can be moved while the substrate 502 remains stationary ([0087], note, in Fig. 7, based on the “direction orthogonal to both the long axis of the head and the substrate normal” above, the substrate or the head would have moved in the y-direction, which means the printing direction is in the y-direction, thus the confinement flow along with excess organic vapor is in a direction from the nozzle 406/506 through the exhaust aperture 402/702, see also the 112 rejection above, the claimed “wherein the second slot is configured to remove excess material in a direction towards a printing direction of the nozzle array, and the first slot is configured to output the gas in a direction opposite the printing direction”).
Regarding to Claim 20,
‘968 teaches Organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) is a technique for producing precisely patterned organic thin films on a substrate ([0065], the claimed “wherein the nozzle array is part of an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) device”).
Regarding to Claim 21,
‘968 teaches confinement gas, which may be argon ([0088], the claimed “wherein the first slot is fluidically coupled to an inert gas source and is configured to emit the gas received from the inert gas source”).
Regarding to Claim 22,
‘968 teaches Delivery gas and uncondensed organic vapor may be removed or sucked out of the deposition zone, along with a portion of the gas ambient surrounding COP head through exhaust apertures 702 ([0091], note the “sucked out” is a function of the pump, the claimed “wherein the second slot is fluidically coupled to a vacuum pump”).
Regarding to Claim 23,
As discussed in the claim 19 rejection above, the printing direction is in the y-direction, and the confinement flow along with excess organic vapor is in a direction from the nozzle 406/506 through the exhaust aperture 402/702, see also the 112 rejection above (the claimed “wherein the second slot is pointed towards the printing direction of the nozzle array, and the first slot is pointed in a direction opposite the printing direction”).
Regarding to Claim 25,
‘968 teaches confinement gas may enter from the edges of the depositor 406 to push surplus organic vapor into the exhaust channels ([0067], note when a gas is provided, the gas intrinsically has a flow rate, see also the 112 rejection above, the claimed “wherein a flow rate of gas outputted from the first slot is at least one selected from a group consisting of: a 90% flow rate, a 95% flow rate, a 98% flow rate, a 99% flow rate, and a 100% flow rate”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘968.
Regarding to Claim 24,
‘968 is silent about the “wherein a removal rate of the excess material removed by the second slot is at least one selected from a group consisting of: a 90% removal rate, a 95% removal rate, a 98% removal rate, a 99% removal rate, and a 100% removal rate”.
However, ‘968 clearly teaches the DEC system may prevent the chamber from becoming contaminated by excess organic material from the printing process ([0068]).
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have pursued as much as higher removal rate of the excess material, for instance, almost 100% removal, for the purpose of preventing contamination by the excess material on the other components of the processing tool.
Regarding to Claim 26,
‘968 teaches a device to move the substrate 502 relative to the print head a direction orthogonal to both the long axis of the COP head 501 and the substrate normal… Alternately, the COP head 501 can be moved while the substrate 502 remains stationary ([0087], the claimed “as the nozzle array approaches a periphery of a display disposed on a substrate”).
‘968 is silent about the “further comprising: an external valve fluidically coupled to at least one or the plurality of nozzles that is configured to switch a flow of one or more of the nozzles of the nozzle array off and on”.
However, it is commonly well-known that an external valve is coupled to each nozzle, for instance, see Fig. 1 of US 20110033638 showing a valve symbol coupled to each nozzle 160.
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an external valve, to each nozzle of ‘968, for the purpose of controlling the gas flow “on” while processing the substrate and also the gas flow “off” while not processing the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 571-272-5166. 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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights