Application No.: 14/007,681
`Amendment Dated October 3, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of July 5, 2016
`
`Remarks /Arquiments:
`
`MTS-3683US
`
`Claims 1-12 and 16 are presently pending, with all pending claims rejected. Applicant
`
`herein amends claim 12, and cancels claims 1-11 and 16 without prejudice or disclaimer, and
`
`adds claims 17-20. No new matter has been added. Reconsideration is respectfully requested
`
`in view of the above amendments and the following remarks.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S8.¢. § 122
`
`Page 3 of the Office Action sets forth “Claims i-4, 7-10, and 16 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite.” Applicant
`
`herein cancels these claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection is
`
`obviated.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of the Office Action sets forth “Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 102¢b) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (PGPub# US 2010/6219064 Al}.” Page 6
`
`of the Office action sets forth “Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Sakal...in view of Warren (US Pat#¥ 6,036,821).” Applicant
`
`herein cancels claims 1-11 and 16, and respectfully submits that the remaining claim Is
`
`patentable over the applied references for the reasens set forth below.
`
`Applicant’s invention, as recited by claim 12, includes features which are not disclosed,
`
`taught, or suggested by the applied reference, namely:
`
`..the angle correcting member is movable with respect to the base
`member during depasition, and...
`
`..performing deposition based on a first deposition condition where
`the angle correcting member is positioned at a first position and
`performing deposition based ona second deposition condition,
`which is different frorn the first deposition condition, where the
`angle correcting mernber is moved to-a second position which is
`different from the first position.
`
`The angle correcting member is movable with respect
`
`to the base rember during
`
`deposition. Deposition is performed based on a first deposition condition,
`
`in which the angle
`
`correcting member is positioned at a first position, and is then performed based on a second
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`Application No.: 14/007,684
`Amendment Dated October 3, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of July 5, 2016
`
`MTS-3683US
`
`deposition condition,
`
`in which the angle correcting member is positioned at a second, different
`
`position. These features are found in the specification, for example, at @@ i21-125. Ne new
`
`matter is added.
`
`The Office Action acknowledges that Sakal does not disclose a movable angle correcting
`
`member. See page 7. Applicant agrees, and respectfully submits that Warren falls to make up
`
`for the deficiencies of Sakai with respect to claim 12.
`
`Warren is directed to a sputtering apparatus. As shown in FIG. 3, Warren discloses a
`
`rotatable collimator 26. The Office Action asserts that it would be obvicus te rmedify Sakai te
`
`include a movable angle correcting member based on collimator 20 of Warren. See page 7.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Warren fails to disclose, teach, or suggest that collimator 20 is moved between different
`
`positions during deposition.
`
`To the contrary, Warren merely discloses that collimator 20 is
`
`moved between the deposition region and cooling or cleaning regions. See col. 5, lines 61-65.
`
`Thus, Warren is different from clair 12, which requires the angle correcting member to be
`
`positioned at first and second different positions during deposition.
`
`Further, Warren fails to disclose,
`
`teach, or suggest changing the incidence angle of
`
`deposition. To the contrary, in Warren, the object is a flat plate, and the deflector restricts the
`
`incidence angle of the deposition material to be vertical. Thus, Warren is different frorn claim
`
`12 for at least this additional reason.
`
`Stil further,
`
`in Sakai mesh 111 does not regulate the incident angie of particles from
`
`target 101. To the contrary, target 101 includes a cover 108 for controlling the directivity of
`
`particles from target 101 to substrate 106. Accordingly, there is no need for a structure that
`
`confines the deposition material from target 101 to a constant incident angle, as taught by
`
`Warren. Thus, Sakai
`
`is also different from claim 12, which requires the angle correcting
`
`member to be positioned at first and second different positions during deposition,
`
`For all of the above reasons, Applicant respectfully subrnits that Sakai in view of Warren
`
`fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of “the angle correcting member is movable with
`
`respect to the base member during deposition, and...performing deposition based on a first
`
`deposition condition where the angle correcting member is pasitioned at a first position and
`
`performing deposition based on a second deposition condition, which is different from the first
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Application No.: 14/007,681
`Amendment Dated October 3, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of July 5, 2016
`
`MTS-3683U5
`
`deposition condition, where the angle correcting member is moved to a second position which is
`
`different from the first position,” as recited in claim 22.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, claim 12 is allowable over the applied
`
`reference. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claim 12 is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`NewClaims
`
`Applicant herein adds new claims 17-20. Clairns 17-20 include all of the features of
`
`claim 12, from which they depend. Thus, Applicant submits that claims 17-20 are allowable
`
`over the applied reference for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 12.
`
`Claims 17-20 include additional features which are mot disciosed, taught, or suggested
`
`by the applied reference. Claim 17 recites “in a case where the angle correcting member is
`
`moved to the second position, the angle correcting member is moved in a direction going away
`
`from the evaporation source”: claim 18 recites “a deposition time is adjusted at the first
`
`position and the second position, respectively"; claim 19 recites “the base member is a solid
`
`object, and the depasition is performed on the solid object"; and claim 20 recites “the
`
`deposition is performed on different faces of the base member.” These features are found in
`
`the specification, for example, at G9] 121-126. No new matter is added.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 17-20 are allewable over the
`
`applied reference for at least these additional reasons.
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Application No.: 14/007,681
`Amendment Dated October 3, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of July 5, 2016
`
`Conclusion:
`
`MTS-3683US
`
`In view of
`
`the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant submits that
`
`this
`
`application is in condition for allowance, which action is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully subr:
`
`
`
`VaannnnsnesennenatanaNSNRDRNASAANAAINNANNADERASPIREDAHO,
`
`
`aw J. Koopman, Reg. No. 65,537
`neys for Applicant
`
`JLE/dmw
`
`Dated: October 3, 2016
`
`2200 Renaissance Blvd.
`Suite 350
`King of Prussia, PA 19406
`(610) 407-0700
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge or credit Deposit Account No. 18-0350 for
`any additional fees, or any underpaymentor credit for overpayment in connection herewith.
`
`3220384
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`