NCC NANO, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2022

2021001383 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/387,297 12/21/2016 ROB JACOB HENDRIKS NCC.001015A 4677 124676 7590 02/25/2022 Russell Ng PLLC 8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100 Austin, TX 78757 EXAMINER HORNING, JOEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): stephanie@russellnglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROB JACOB HENDRIKS, PAUL ABEL, and ERICA COENEN Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 Technology Center 1700 Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, LILAN REN, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s April 29, 2020 decision to finally reject claims 1-19 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Novacentrix Corporation. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method for selectively depositing a functional material on a substrate as part of a printing process (Spec. 1). A plate 31 having a first surface (the top surface of plate 31 in Fig. 3C below) and a second surface (the bottom surface) is provided; a layer of light scattering material 37 is applied onto the first surface and a layer of a reflective material 38 is applied to the second surface (Spec. 3). A group of wells 36 are formed on the second surface, and a layer of light absorbing material 34 is applied to the surface of wells 36 (id.). The wells are then filled with a functional material (id.). This general structure is illustrated by Figure 3C reproduced below: Fig. 3C shows a printing device for use with the claimed method The plate is then irradiated with a pulse of light to heat light absorbing material 34, which generates a gas at the interface between the light absorbing material and the functional material, which releases the functional material from the wells onto a receiving substrate (id.). Details of the claimed method are set forth in claims 1 and 11, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 3 1. A method for depositing a functional material on a substrate, said method comprising: providing a plate having a first surface and a second surface; removing materials from said second surface to form a plurality of wells within said second surface, wherein said plurality of wells have different depths; depositing a light scattering material layer on said first surface of said plate; coating said second surface of said plate and said plurality of wells within said second surface of said plate with a layer of light-absorbing material; filling said plurality of wells with a functional material without any of said functional material located outside said plurality of wells; and irradiating said plate with a pulsed light from a non- collimated light source to heat said light-absorbing material in order to generate gas at an interface between said light- absorbing material and said functional material to release said functional material from said plurality of wells onto a receiving substrate such that none of said functional material remains on said plate. 11. A method for depositing a functional material on a substrate, said method comprising: providing a plate having a first surface and a second surface; removing materials from said second surface to form a plurality of wells within said second surface, wherein said plurality of wells have different depths; coating said second surface of said plate except said plurality of wells with a light reflecting material layer; depositing a light absorbing material layer directly on said light reflecting material layer and inside said plurality of wells; filling said plurality of wells with a functional material without any of said functional material located outside said plurality of wells; and Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 4 irradiating said plate with a pulsed light from a non- collimated light source to heat said light-absorbing material in order to generate gas at an interface between said light- absorbing material and said functional material to release said functional material from said plurality of wells onto a receiving substrate such that none of said functional material remains on said plate. Appeal Br. 13, 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Duignan US 2003/0178395 A1 September 25, 2003 Kim et al. US 2005/0112303 A1 May 26, 2005 Fujimori et al. US 2012/0231228 A1 September 13, 2012 Aoyama et al. US 2012/0251772 A1 October 4, 2012 Cho et al. US 2015/0333259 A1 November 19, 2015 Meinders et al. EP 2 660 352 A1 November 6, 2013 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Meinders and Cho, and further in view of Kim. 2. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Meinders and Cho, and Kim, and further in view of Duignan. 3. Claims 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Meinders and Cho, and Kim, and further in view of Fujimori. Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 5 4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Meinders and Cho, and Kim, and further in view of Fujimori and Duignan. OPINION With one exception - claim 11 - Appellant does not argue the claims separately (see, Appeal Br. 5-11). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal based on the rejection of claim 1 over Aoyama in view of Meinders and Cho, and further in view of Kim. We address the arguments concerning claim 11 separately. The Examiner’s findings are set forth in the Final Action at pages 3-7. The Examiner finds that Aoyama teaches a method for depositing functional material onto a substrate which includes all of the limitations of claim 1, except that it does not disclose (1) creating wells in the second surface of the plate by etching (Final Act. 4), (2) having a light scattering layer on the first surface of the substrate (Final Act. 5), and (3) only depositing the donor material in the wells (Final Act. 5). The Examiner makes findings that (1) Meinders teaches creating wells by etching (Final act. 4), (2) Cho teaches adding a light scattering layer (Final Act. 5), and (3) Meinders and Kim teach only depositing the donor material in the wells (Final Act. 5-6), and determines that it would have been obvious to modify Aoyama according to these teachings to arrive at the invention of claim 1. Appellant makes several arguments urging reversal of the rejection. First, Appellant argues that Aoyama and Cho are non-analogous art and, Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 6 therefore, not properly combined in the obviousness rejection.2 This line of argument is unpersuasive. Notably, “[t]he analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 959-60 (Fed. Cir. 1992)) (emphases added). Here, Appellant compares the cited references to each other, rather than to the applicant’s field of endeavor or problems with which the inventors of the subject application were concerned. Such arguments do not squarely address the test for determining whether a reference is analogous art and are, for at least this reason, unpersuasive. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87. The Examiner finds that Aoyama teaches a method for depositing functional material on a substrate (Final Act. 3), and that Cho is directed towards thermal transfer substrates (Final Act. 5). Appellant argues that because Aoyama “is related to a method for manufacturing a light emitting device,” and Cho “is related to a method for manufacturing a thermal transfer film,” the technologies “are not related to each other” (Appeal Br. 5-6 (referencing, but not specifically citing, material from Aoyama ¶ 2, Cho ¶ 1)). Appellant does not address, however, whether the technologies are related to the field in which Appellant is operating. Additionally, Appellant 2 Appellant asserts that each of the cited references are in different fields of endeavor, but only argues Aoyama and Cho are not pertinent to the problem an inventor was trying to solve (Appeal Br. 5-6). Accordingly, Appellant has effectively not challenged that Meinders and Kim are analogous art, and we focus our attention on the arguments pertinent to Aoyama and Cho. Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 7 argues that although Cho teaches that its thermal transfer film may be used as a donor film, it fails to mention a receiving substrate (Appeal Br. 6-7). Therefore, Appellant contends, “Cho does not disclose all of the four elements (i.e. light, material, a donor substrate and a receiving substrate) that qualify Cho’s description as a light induced forward transfer process” (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds that both Aoyama and Cho are directed towards light induced forward transfer processes, which is the subject area of the application on appeal (Ans. 3, citing Aoyama ¶¶ 11-14, and Cho ¶¶ 1-10). Cho explicitly states that one aspect of its invention is to provide a “thermal transfer film that is free from disturbance of an optical path of laser light and transfer failure caused by foreign matters in a base film” (Cho ¶ 7, emphasis added). Because Cho is concerned about possible transfer failure, it necessarily must be concerned with transfer, which in turn necessarily implies the existence of a receiving substrate. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer on this issue (see, Reply Br. 2-3) and, therefore, fails to demonstrate reversible error in them. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence of record shows that both Aoyama and Cho are in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s disclosure. Accordingly, we determine that the cited references are not non- analogous art and may be combined in an obviousness rejection. Appellant also argues that the rejection relies on an excessive number of references (Appeal Br. 7-8). This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The number of references used in a rejection does not itself negate the obviousness of the combined teachings of the references. See In Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 8 re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The large number of cited references does not negate the obviousness of the combination, for the prior art uses the various elements for the same purposes as they are used by appellants, making the claimed invention as a whole obvious in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103.”). Appellant next argues that the art does not teach or suggest the claimed step of “depositing a light scattering material layer on said first surface” (Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner finds that this step is suggested by Cho’s optical pattern layer 170 (Final Act. 5). Appellant argues that: Cho’s element 110 in Figure 3 and element 10 in Figure 5 are films, not a donor substrate such as the claimed plate. In other words, Cho does not employ a donor substrate/receiving substrate combination, as disclosed in Aoyama, and Cho does not disclose any material being transferred from a donor substrate to a receiving substrate, as disclosed in Aoyama. As such, there is no reason to apply Cho’s optical pattern layer 170 to Aoyama’s substrate 101, especially when Cho’s application is completely different from Aoyama’s. (Appeal Br. 9). However, the Examiner has made findings explaining why a person of skill in the art would have combined Cho’s light scattering element with Aoyama’s system (Final Act. 5). Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have formed a light scattering layer on the first surface of the plate in order to improve the uniformity of the delivery of light to the light absorbing layer to improve the transfer of the functional layer, as taught by Cho (¶ 39). Appellant next argues that Aoyama does not disclose filling only the wells with the functional material and that Aoyama’s process requires depositing material outside of the wells (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant further Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 9 argues that if the functional material were pre-patterned as suggested by Kim, there would be no need for Aoyama’s wells, which serve to heat the functional material (id.). However, as explained by the Examiner, Kim provides a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have only applied the functional material where it will be transferred (which would be only in the wells) in order to produce a cleaner transfer of the functional material. The Examiner further finds that “[r]egarding the argument that applying the functional material only in the wells would cause the wells to have no purpose, Meinders does so, so that is not the case, and additionally, causing a cleaner transfer would clearly be applicable to any process that uses wells” (Ans. 5). Appellant does not challenge this finding and, therefore, does not show error in it. Appellant next argues that Aoyama does not disclose the claimed non- collimated light source (Appeal Br. 10). However, the Examiner finds that Aoyama discloses the use of a non-collimated discharge lamp (Ans. 5, citing Aoyama ¶ 77). Appellant does not dispute this finding and does not show error in it. Finally, with respect to claim 11, Appellant argues that Aoyama does not disclose the claimed reflective layer (Appeal Br. 11). However, as explained by the Examiner, Meinders is relied on as teaching the etching of wells, while Aoyama specifically teaches the presence of a reflective layer 103 (Aoyama, ¶ 46). Therefore, that Aoyama uses the reflective layer in part to create the wells does not impact the rejection, as Meinders teaches the creation of the wells. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2021-001383 Application 15/387,297 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 103 Aoyama, Meinders, Cho, Kim 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 5, 15 103 Aoyama, Meinders, Cho, Kim, Duignan 5, 15 11-14, 16- 19 103 Aoyama, Meinders, Cho, Kim, Fujimori 11-14, 16- 19 15 103 Aoyama, Meinders, Cho, Kim, Fujimori, Duignan 15 Overall Outcome 1-19 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2020). AFFIRMED