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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 31 recites reciprocating mechanism for reciprocating the piercing needle and the other spinning needle. The reciprocating mechanism is interpreted as the structure specified in claim 36 or 44 (pneumatic system).
Claim 36 recites a pressing means and an elastic means. The elastic means is interpreted as the structure specified in claim 38 and the pressing means is interpreted as a cylindrical sleeve surrounding the spring mounting portion of the spring house (pg. 16 of the specification; 160 of figure 1).
Claim 52 recites the limitation wherein the reciprocating mechanism comprises: a first means of reciprocating for reciprocating the first nozzle support vertically in order to relatively lower the radiation needle with respect to the piercing needle or to upwardly restore the radiation needle to its original position so that the piercing needle may penetrate the radiation needle and protrude to the outside; and a second means of reciprocating for reciprocating the third nozzle support vertically in order to raise the solvent injection needle or to lower the solvent injection needle to its original position so that the solvent injection needle may penetrate the radiation needle or the piercing needle and protrude. For purposes of compact prosecution, reciprocating is given the structure motor as per pg publication [0025]. Examiner is interpreting second means as the second means of piercing is a wire having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the piercing needle and coaxially disposed inside the piercing needle [pg pub 0028] and second means of piercing is a solvent injection nozzle [pg pub 0029].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 31, 35 -37, 47-52, 56, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824.
Regarding claim 31, Majidi teaches an electrospinning device (abstract) comprising
a nozzle block (500) including a spinning nozzle having a hollow spinning needle for discharging the spinning solution to the outside, a piercing nozzle comprising a hollow piercing needle having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the spinning needle and disposed coaxially inside the spinning needle (see figure 5), and a reciprocating mechanism (504) for reciprocating the piercing needle and the spinning needle relative to each other; a collector (603) for stacking nanofibers radiated from the nozzle block while transferring the substrate; a solution storage tank (408) for storing the spinning solution; a solution transfer mechanism for transferring the solution in the solution storage tank to the nozzle block (see figure 4); and a high voltage power supply (407) for applying a high voltage to the spinning solution discharged from the spinning needle of the nozzle block wherein the piercing needle protrudes to the outside through the tip of the spinning needle by reciprocating (figure 5, [0040-0042], the spinning solution supplied to the piercing nozzle passes through the piercing needle and is discharged to the outside through the spinning needle of the spinning nozzle a nozzle block including a radiation nozzle having a radiation needle for discharging the spinning solution to the outside [0045];
Majidi does not explicitly disclose an unwinder for unwinding a roll on which a substrate for stacking nanofibers by spinning a spinning solution is wound; a winder for winding the substrate on which the nanofibers are stacked. However, it is conventionally known to have an unwinder and winder. Analogous art, ‘824 discloses an unwinder for unwinding a roll on which a substrate for stacking nanofibers by spinning a spinning solution is wound (paragraph 0036); a winder for winding the substrate (paragraph 0036) on which the nanofibers are stacked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an unwinder and winder as taught by ‘824 into the device taught by Majidi since KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 35, Majidi discloses wherein the piercing needle is disposed 0.5 mm to 50 mm below from the tip of the spinning needle [0046].
Regarding claim 36, Majidi does not explicitly go into detail of the reciprocating mechanism. However, ‘824 discloses wherein the reciprocating mechanism (6) comprises: a pressing means for lowering the spinning needle so that the piercing needle may penetrate the spinning needle and protrude to the outside [0037]; and an elastic means for lifting (6) and restoring the spinning needle lowered by the pressing means to its original position [0020].
Regarding claim 37, Majidi discloses wherein the spinning needle is lowered so that the protruding length of the piercing needle is 1 mm to 15 mm [008, 0037, 0046, 0056].
Regarding claim 47, Majidi discloses comprises a solvent injection nozzle comprising a hollow solvent injection needle having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the piercing needle and having coaxially disposed inside the piercing needle (figure 5 [0043-0045]).
Regarding claim 48, Majidi discloses wherein the tip of the solvent injection needle is disposed 1 mm to 10 mm below from the tip of the piercing needle [008, 0037, 0046, 0056].
Regarding claim 49, Majidi discloses the tip of the solvent injection needle is positioned 1 mm to 10 mm below from the tip of the spinning needle so that the tip of the solvent injection needle is disposed between the tip of the piercing needle and the tip of the spinning needle [008, 0037, 0046, 0056].
Regarding claim 50, as for the claim limitation, which further comprises a cleaning solvent storage tank for storing a cleaning solvent to be supplied to the solvent injection nozzle, MPEP 2115 states material or article worked upon my does not limit apparatus claims. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claim 51, Majidi teaches an electrospinning device (abstract) comprising
a nozzle block (500) including a spinning nozzle having a hollow spinning needle for discharging the spinning solution to the outside,
a piercing nozzle comprising a hollow piercing needle having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the spinning needle and disposed coaxially inside the spinning needle (see figure 5),
a solvent injection nozzle comprising a hollow solvent injection needle having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the piercing needle and having coaxially disposed inside the piercing needle (figure 2 and 5)
a collector (603) for stacking nanofibers radiated from the nozzle block while transferring the substrate;
a solution storage tank (408) for storing the spinning solution; a solution transfer mechanism for transferring the solution in the solution storage tank to the nozzle block (see figure 4); and a high voltage power supply (407) for applying a high voltage to the spinning solution discharged from the spinning needle of the nozzle block wherein the piercing needle protrudes to the outside through the tip of the spinning needle by reciprocating (figure 5, [0040-0042], the spinning solution supplied to the piercing nozzle passes through the piercing needle and is discharged to the outside through the spinning needle of the spinning nozzle a nozzle block including a radiation nozzle having a radiation needle for discharging the spinning solution to the outside [0045];
Majidi depicts a first nozzle support for supporting and fixing at least two radiation nozzles in a row; a second nozzle support for supporting and fixing at least two piercing nozzles in a row to correspond to the radiation nozzle fixed to the first nozzle support; and a third nozzle support for supporting and fixing at least two solvent injection nozzles in a row to correspond to the piercing nozzle fixed to the second nozzle support in figure 6. Further, MPEP 2144.04 VI states In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a first nozzle support for supporting and fixing at least two radiation nozzles in a row; and a second nozzle support for supporting and fixing at least two piercing nozzles in a row to correspond to the radiation nozzle fixed to the first nozzle support; and a third nozzle support for supporting and fixing at least two solvent injection nozzles in a row to correspond to the piercing nozzle fixed to the second nozzle support since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the nozzles for the purpose of streamlining the process.
Majidi does not explicitly disclose an unwinder for unwinding a roll on which a substrate for stacking nanofibers by spinning a spinning solution is wound; a winder for winding the substrate on which the nanofibers are stacked. However, it is conventionally known to have an unwinder and winder. Analogous art, ‘824 discloses an unwinder for unwinding a roll on which a substrate for stacking nanofibers by spinning a spinning solution is wound (paragraph 0036); a winder for winding the substrate (paragraph 0036) on which the nanofibers are stacked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an unwinder and winder as taught by ‘824 into the device taught by Majidi since KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 52, as for the claim limitation wherein the reciprocating mechanism comprises: a first means of reciprocating for reciprocating the first nozzle support vertically in order to relatively lower the radiation needle with respect to the piercing needle or to upwardly restore the radiation needle to its original position so that the piercing needle may penetrate the radiation needle and protrude to the outside; and a second means of reciprocating for reciprocating the third nozzle support vertically in order to raise the solvent injection needle or to lower the solvent injection needle to its original position so that the solvent injection needle may penetrate the radiation needle or the piercing needle and protrude, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 56, ‘824 does not wherein the second means of reciprocating is a motor drive system capable of forward and reverse control. However, 824 teaches motor capable of forward and reverse control [0020, 0035]. MPEP 2144.04 VI states In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a the second means of reciprocating is a motor drive system capable of forward and reverse control since the courts have ruled that that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 61, ‘824 teaches a robot driving unit for reciprocating the nozzle block in the width direction of the substrate (controller in [0037]); and a radiation distance control unit (controller) for adjusting the distance between the collector and the tip of the radiation needle[0042].
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824, as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Brusa (US2011/0011952A1).
Regarding claim 38, Majidi doesn’t explicitly discloser wherein the elastic means is a spring. However, it is conventionally well known to have elastic means as spring. Analogous nozzle art, Brusa, discloses as known in the art, by a spring biasing a shutter against an inlet hole of the air coming from a pressure source, such as a compressor [0012] and he assembly of the valve needle 10 and the pressure tube 7 is supported by a guard 5 threadingly engaged with said main body 11 and having a return spring 6 around its inner surface. Said spring 6 biases against its seat the pressure tube 7 protruding from said guard 5 enough for forming, on its external surface, a thread for engaging a nozzle-holder cap 1 [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an elastic means such as a spring, as taught by Brus, into the apparatus taught by Majidi since (1) it is conventionally well known and (2) in order to allow protrusion of the needle. MPEP 2144.04 states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824), as applied to 52, and further in view of Sugawara (US2019/0153623 A1).
Regarding claim 53, ‘824 teaches motor capable of forward and reverse control [0020, 0035] but does not explicitly disclose motion conversion mechanism. Analogous art, Sugawara teaches actuators (616) for converting the forward and reverse rotational motion of this motor into linear motion; and reciprocating drive mechanism for reciprocating the first nozzle support up and down according to the linear motion [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated motion conversion mechanism as taught by Sugawara, into the device taught by Majidi since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 44, 54, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824), and further in view of Groen et al (US 5,369, 834).
Regarding claim 44, 54, and 57, Majidi does not explicitly disclose wherein the means of reciprocating is a pneumatic system. However, analogous coaxial art, Groen et al, discloses “since the rotary pneumatic motor 11 is, for the most part, a conventional commercial type motor, the details of construction thereof are thought to be unnecessary for the present invention” (column 2 lines 28-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the means of reciprocating is a pneumatic system since Groen discloses it is a conventional commercial type of motor. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824), as applied to 52, and further in view of Mueller (US 3,398, 859).
Regarding claim 55, Majidi does not explicitly disclose wherein the second means of reciprocating comprises: a handle for generating the forward and reverse rotational power; and a reciprocating transfer mechanism for reciprocating the third nozzle support up and down by converting the forward and reverse rotational motion of this handle into linear motion. However, same field of endeavor, Mueller, discloses the upper end of the plunger is pined at 101 to an oscillating operating pump arm or handle, a portion of which is shown at 103. Pin 101 is connected to handle 103 a short distance from the end of the arm. The end of the arm is pivoted by a pin 105 to the bifurcated end of a rocker arm 107. The other end of the rocker arm is pivoted at 109 on the body 3. This linkage is connected so that movement of handle 103 advances or retracts the plunger on a line coaxial with cylinder 1. Retraction of the plunger relative to the cylinder is limited by engagement of the beveled end 110, rocker arm 107 and a part 111 on arm 103, as shown in FIG. 3. This linkage and stop arrangement limits the bending force that may be applied to the plunger by the operator of the pump. This also determines the position of the groove 99 when the handle 103 is up (column 4 lines 7-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the second means of reciprocating comprises: a handle for generating the forward and reverse rotational power; and a reciprocating transfer mechanism for reciprocating the third nozzle support up and down by converting the forward and reverse rotational motion of this handle into linear motion as taught by Muller into the apparatus taught by Majidi for the benefit of increasing the range of motion of the reciprocating motion. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 58-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824), and further in view of Bidhar (US2019/0242031 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Majidi discloses nozzles but does not explicitly disclose cleaning spray nozzles. Analogous art, Bidhar teaches cleaning spray nozzle for removing deposits attached to the tip of the radiation needle by spraying a solvent to the outside of the tip of the radiation needle [0082]. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated cleaning spray nozzles since KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 59, Majidi discloses nozzles but does not explicitly disclose cleaning spray nozzles. Bidar teaches which further comprises at least one cleaning spray nozzle for removing deposits attached to the tip of the radiation needle by spraying a solvent to the outside of the tip of the radiation needle [0082]. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated cleaning spray nozzles since KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 60, Majidi does not explicitly disclose a transfer table for reciprocating the cleaning spray nozzle along the first nozzle support. However, analogous art, Bidhar teaches The system 600 further includes a cleaning material 685 formed in the dispenser 635, formed in the path of the spikes in spike array 630 as they return to internal grove 640, as illustrated in FIG. 6B. The cleaning material 685 can comprise a soft material that wipes the residual fluid from the spikes in the spike array 630. The cleaning material 685 is arranged such that the rotating spike array 630 brushes against the cleaning material 685 while rotating, so as to prevent formation of any solid layer of solution on the spikes in spike array 630 [0082]. In this case, the transfer table is 625. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a transfer table for reciprocating the cleaning spray nozzle along the first nozzle support as taught by Bidhar, into the apparatus taught by Majidi for the benefit of cleaning the nozzles.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824), and further in view of Bidhar (US2019/0242031 A1), as applied to 61, and further in view of Kim (US2013/0011508A1).
Regarding 62, Majidi does not explicitly teach a hot air generator for making fine nanofibers by volatilizing a solvent from a large amount of the spun filaments radiated from the radiation needles of the nozzle block; a humidity control device for controlling the solvent volatilization speed by adjusting internal humidity; and a lamination device for controlling the bonding state of the nanofibers configured on the substrate. However, analogous art, electrospinning apparatus, Kim, teaches hot air generator (20) for making fine nanofibers by volatilizing a solvent from a large amount of the spun filaments radiated from the radiation needles of the nozzle block [0035]; a humidity control device (22) for controlling the solvent volatilization speed by adjusting internal humidity [0035]; and a lamination device (100) for controlling the bonding state of the nanofibers configured on the substrate [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a hot air generator for making fine nanofibers by volatilizing a solvent from a large amount of the spun filaments radiated from the radiation needles of the nozzle block; a humidity control device for controlling the solvent volatilization speed by adjusting internal humidity; and a lamination device for controlling the bonding state of the nanofibers configured on the substrate, as taught by Kim into the device taught by Majidi for the benefit of for efficiently producing nanofibers having uniform diameters [0012].
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majidi (US 2018/0010263 A1) in view of Chinese patent application, CN107151824A, herein referred to as ‘824), and further in view of Bidhar (US2019/0242031 A1) and further in view of Kim (US2013/0011508A1), as applied to 62, and further in view of Jeong (US2019/0176095A1).
Regarding claim 63, Majidi does not explicitly disclose c a video camera for monitoring in real time the solidified state or clogged state of the spinning solution formed at the tip of the radiation needle, or the droplet state of the Taylor cone formed at the tip of the radiation needle. However, analogous electrospinning art, Jeong, discloses a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera [0095] for monitoring the shape of the droplet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a camera as taught by Jeon into the apparatus taught by Majidi and Bidhar for the benefit of monitoring the droplets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the instant claims and the Majidi are different since the instant claims require a hollow spinning needle for discharging the spinning solution to the outside, a hollow piercing needle having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the spinning needle and piercing needle coaxially disposed inside spinning needle while Majidi discloses an inner tube that may function as a solution nozzle, an outer tube that may function as a solvent/gas nozzle and an inner tube coaxially disposed inside an outer tube. However, Applicants arguments are directed to the functional difference and not the structural differences. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues the reciprocating mechanism for reciprocating the piercing needle and the spinning needle relative to each other. Applicant argues the reciprocating mechanism of the instant claims are different components, however, as written, the claim language does not actively recited the components are different. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues the piercing needle protrudes to the outside through the tip of the spinning needle in the instant claim is different than the prior arts inner tube may include an extended tip that may extend from a tip of the outer tube. Although the inventions may be different, the claim as written is broad, and therefore the prior art reads on the claim.
Applicant further argues since the prior art discloses pressurized solvent/gas stream may be concurrently discharged from the outer tube, however claim and specification as written does not preclude having a pressurized solvent/gas stream. Further, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., pressurized solvent/gas stream), as per MPEP §2115.
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights