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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the instant claims in an attempt to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant has argued that the limitations of claims 14 and 15, which were not rejected by the prior art, have been incorporated into independent claims 1 and 25. As such, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been removed.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant has argued that the amended claims are directed to eligible subject matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite determining whether a subject droplet particle count is less than desired, and dispensing an additional droplet to a target region, or if the droplet particle count is not less than desired, dispensing a subsequent droplet to a subsequent target region. The Examiner contends that the “determining” step, and whether a user decides to dispense an additional droplet, or move on to a new droplet at an additional target region are all mental steps that only require analyzing the particle count of the droplet, and making a decision as to whether an additional droplet will be dispensed. As set forth in the MPEP, methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work are abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). As such, the Examiner contends that the determining step is an abstract idea in the same way the comparing step is an abstract idea. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim does not recite a practical application as nothing is required to occur after the initial droplet is dispensed. Also, dispensing an additional droplet based on a low particle count is nothing more than repeating the initial dispensing step, which also is not a practical application. Therefore, based on the limitations of the instant claims, and the arguments provided here, the Examiner contends that claims 1-13, 16, 23, and 24 do not comply with 35 U.S.C. 101, and are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13, 16, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract ideas of comparing at least one pre-dispensed image and at least one post-dispensed image to determine a subject particle drop count representing a count of particles included in a droplet, and determining whether a subject droplet particle count is less than a desired particle count. The step of comparing a pre-dispensed image and a post-dispensed image to determine a particle count is a mental process that can be performed in a user's mind as it only requires viewing the two images, making a comparison, and determining a particle count (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). Similarly, the step of determining whether a particle count is less than desired is a mental process that can be performed in a user’s mind as it only requires analyzing the particle count and making a determination if the particle count is less than a desired amount (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). As set forth in the MPEP, methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work are abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). As such, the comparing step recited in claim 1 is an abstract idea. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because nothing is required to occur after the comparing and determining steps provided the particle count is deemed sufficient by the user. The claim does provide for dispensing an additional droplet if the particle count is less than desired, or dispensing a subsequent droplet at a different target region; however, the Examiner notes that those limitations are repeating steps that have already occurred, and therefore not a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of receiving a pre-dispensed image, dispensing a droplet, and receiving post dispensed images are nothing more than routine data gathering that does not amount to significantly more (MPEP2106.05(g)). The Examiner contends that receiving pre-dispensed images, dispensing a droplet, and receiving post dispensed images constitutes pre-solution activity of gathering data that is utilized to perform the comparing and determining steps, which as detailed above are abstract ideas. As such, the steps of receiving pre-dispensed images, dispensing a droplet, and receiving post dispensed images does not provide significantly more to the judicial exception. For the sake of brevity, the Examiner has only addressed the limitations of claim 1, but notes that the rationale holds for claims 2-13, 16, 23, and 24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a system for controlled particle deposition comprising a controller in communication with an imager and a substrate stage wherein the controller is configured to receive at least one pre-dispensed image of a nozzle of a droplet dispenser from the imager wherein the nozzle includes fluid to be dispensed to a target region of the substrate stage, cause the droplet dispenser to dispense the droplet, receive at least one post-dispensed image from the imager, comparing the pre-dispensed image and the post-dispensed image to determine a droplet particle count, determine whether the particle count is less than a desired particle count, and causing the droplet dispenser to dispense a further droplet to the target region if the particle count is less than desirable, and causing the droplet dispenser to dispense a subsequent droplet to a subsequent target region different from the initial target region if the particle count is not less than desired. The prior art closest to claim 25 is reference to Cheng et al., (Biofabrication, 8, 2016, 015008) who teach a system comprising an inkjet nozzle, an imager, and a function generator connected to an amplifier. As such, reference to Cheng et al., teach the structural elements of claim 25. However, Cheng et al., do not teach a controller configured to receive a pre-dispensed image, dispense a droplet to a target region, receive a post-dispensed image, compare the pre and post dispensed images to determine a particle count, determine whether a particle count is less than desired, dispensing an additional droplet if the particle count is less than desired, and dispensing a subsequent droplet at a subsequent target region when the particle count is not less than desired. Reference to Cheng et al., do not teach a computer or controller configured to perform the functions recited in claim 25, and therefore does not teach or suggest the claimed controller.
Conclusion
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 DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797