DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Applicant's supplemental submission filed on December 19, 2025 has been entered along with a petition for a 1-month extension of time. Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 13 were amended. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 14, and 29-30 were cancelled. Claims 35-37 were added.
Applicant’s previous submission filed on November 25, 2025 was entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 12-13, and 36 were amended. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 14, and 29-30 have been cancelled. Claims 15-28 have been previously withdrawn. Claim 4 has been rejoined. Claim 38 has been withdrawn. Claims 38-42 were added. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 31-37, and 39-42 are in the case and pending examination.
A Non-Final Rejection was mailed on July 30, 2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 38 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
“the particle oscillator oscillates a horizontal portion of the substrate” is a new limitation and separate species from “a particle oscillator disposed downstream of the mist supplier in a direction in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particle in the mist”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 38 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 particle oscillator oscillates a horizontal portion of the substrate” in claim 38 and “the particle oscillator oscillates the fine particle by applying an AC voltage to the fine particle contained in the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate” in claim 40 and “the particle oscillator includes: a first electrode, a second electrode, and an AC electric field generator” in claim 42 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the particle oscillator oscillates the fine particle by applying an AC voltage to the fine particle contained in the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate” in claims 1 and 40 and
“the particle oscillator includes: a first electrode, a second electrode, and an AC electric field generator” in claim 42.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “AC electric field generating section in claims 1 and 3 is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because this limitation has been deleted from both of these claims.
Claim limitation “temperature adjusting mechanism” in claims 6, 8, 12, and 13 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “temperature adjusting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “mechanism” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 6, 8, 12, and 13 has/have been interpreted to cover “a hot plate or cooling plate” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., para 0049).
Claim Interpretation
The expression “fine particles” in claims is deemed definite since applicant’s specification discloses that “fine particles” corresponds to nanoparticles (Spec., para 0002).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 2 : “with mist containing” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “with a mist containing” .
The phrase in line 6 : “oscillate the fine particle”.
A suggested revision is as follows: “oscillate the fine particles .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 2 : “the AC electric field generator” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “[[the]] an AC electric field generator”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase : “the first electrode” or “the second electrode” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “a first electrode” or “a second electrode”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 2 : “with mist containing” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “with a mist containing” .
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 3 : “adjusting section” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “adjusting mechanism
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase : “the liquid is a dispersion” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “the mist
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 2 : “the air guide” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “[[the]] an air guide”.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 2 : “the recovered mist” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “ the which has been recovered”.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase in line 2 : “charge mist” .
A suggested revision is as follows: “ charge the mist “.
Claims 40-41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase: “ the fine particle”.
A suggested revision is as follows: “the fine particles .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn since claim 12 was amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 31-33, 35, 36, and 37 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The previous rejection based on claims 1, 3, and 4 reciting “at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode” is withdrawn based on the deletion of this limitation from the claims.
The previous rejection of claim 8 based on the limitation “the temperature adjusting plate” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 8.
The previous rejection of claim 36 recites “the feeding section” in line 1. is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1, 5, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kisler (USP 5152838) and Faust ( USP 5,110, 618) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 5.
Claims 1, 36, 39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Faust ( USP 5,110, 618) .
Regarding claim 1, Dinter teaches a deposition apparatus comprising:
an atomizing apparatus 8 (mist supplier) mechanically configured to supply a web 1 (substrate) with mist containing fine particles (col. 4, lines 15-45; col. 6, lines 40-64; see for example Fig. 4).
Dinter further teaches a feeder including a supporting mechanism ( roller 10) configured to support the substrate and configured to feed the substrate (web 1), (Dinter, Abstract, col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4 . ).
Dinter does not explicitly teach a particle oscillator disposed downstream of the mist supplier in a direction in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particle.
Faust is directed to coating a substrate with vaporizable solvent components.
Faust teaches a particle oscillator (2) disposed downstream of the mist supplier in a direction in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particles. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 15-20, 30-42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a particle oscillator disposed downstream of the mist supplier in a direction in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particle, because Faust teaches this structure provides a higher coating rate, since the film consists substantially of solid components, and improved properties of the light sensitive film on the substrate including increased uniformity and homogeneity. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 15-20, 30-42.)
Regarding claim 36, Dinter further teaches a roller 10 (feeder) including a rotating drum including a conductive outer peripheral surface, and the roller 10 (feeder, rotating drum) support the web 1 (substrate) in an arc shape (col. 4, lines 3-7; col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-4; col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 39, Dinter does not explicitly teach a drier configured to dry the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate, wherein the drier is disposed downstream of the mist supplier in the direction in which the substrate is fed.
Faust teaches a drier (14) configured to dry the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate, wherein the drier is disposed downstream of the mist supplier in the direction in which the substrate is fed. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 25-40 and col. 5, lines 20-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a drier configured to dry the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate, wherein the drier is disposed downstream of the mist supplier in the direction in which the substrate is fed, because Faust teaches this structure allows the coating to be fused to the substrate. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 25-40 and col. 5, lines 20-25.)
Regarding claim 41, Dinter does not explicitly teach the fine particle has polarity.
Faust teaches the fine particle has polarity. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 25-40 and col. 5, lines 20-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fine particle with polarity, because Faust teaches the fine particles having opposed charging with the substrate can lead to a surface-covering film of the substrate to be achieved. (See Faust, Abstract, col. 7, lines 8-37.)
Regarding claim 42, Dinter teaches the particle oscillator includes a first electrode 27 (col. 6, lines 40-64; see for example Fig. 4); and
a core 2 (second electrode) (col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4), and
an electrostatic field generator 5 (AC electric field generating section). (col. 4, lines 45-68 through col. 5, lines 1-8; see for example Fig. 4).
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kisler (USP 5152838) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Taylor-Brown (USP 4060648, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 3-4 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Faust ( USP 5,110, 618) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kisler (USP 5152838) and Taylor-Brown (USP 4060648, already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Dinter teaches a first electrode 27 facing the mist adhering to a surface of the substrate (col. 6, lines 40-64; see for example Fig. 4); and
a core 2 (second electrode) provided on a back surface of the web 1 (substrate) (col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4), and
an electrostatic field generator 5 (AC electric field generating section) configured to apply an AC voltage to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode. (col. 4, lines 45-68 through col. 5, lines 1-8; see for example Fig. 4).
Dinter does not explicitly teach wherein the electrostatic field generator 5 (AC electric field generating section) being further configured to apply an AC electric field to the mist adhering to the surface of the web 1 (substrate).
However, Kisler teaches a high voltage power supply 48 (AC electric field generating section) further configured to apply an AC electric field to a liquid coating adhering to the surface of a web 30 (substrate) (col. 4, lines 58-65 col. 5, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 1-23; see for example Figs. 1-4), for the benefit of enhancing drying (col. 6, lines 8-23). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the AC electric field generating section in the apparatus of Dinter, in the manner taught by Kisler, for the benefit of enhancing drying.
Regarding claim 3, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach the AC electric field generator is configured to apply to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is greater than zero.
However, Taylor-Brown teaches the strength of the AC potential required to achieve an excited particle cloud will depend on various factors including the frequency of the AC field, the size of the particles, the specific gravity of the material of the particles, the orientation of the electrodes, the separation of the electrodes, and on the conductivity of the particles and the density of the field required ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. ) . Taylor-Brown further teaches supplying an AC potential in the ranges of 2 to 10 KV at a frequency of 50 Hertz is applicable to a wide range of materials in particulate form when the particle size lies within the region up to 20 mil and for substantially vertically opposed electrodes spaced apart by a distance up to 0.3 inch. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrostatic field generator in Dinter to include an AC electric field generator is configured to apply to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is greater than zero, as taught by Taylor-Brown, for the benefit of achieving an excited particle cloud. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
Regarding claim 4, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach the AC electric field generator applies to at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is smaller than zero.
However, Taylor-Brown teaches the strength of the AC potential required to achieve an excited particle cloud will depend on various factors including the frequency of the AC field, the size of the particles, the specific gravity of the material of the particles, the orientation of the electrodes, the separation of the electrodes, and on the conductivity of the particles and the density of the field required ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. ) . Taylor-Brown further teaches supplying an AC potential in the ranges of 2 to 10 KV at a frequency of 50 Hertz is applicable to a wide range of materials in particulate form when the particle size lies within the region up to 20 mil and for substantially vertically opposed electrodes spaced apart by a distance up to 0.3 inch. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrostatic field generator in Dinter to include an AC electric field generator is configured to apply to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is smaller than zero, as taught by Taylor-Brown, for the benefit of achieving an excited particle cloud. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
Regarding claim 40, Dinter does not explicitly teach wherein the particle oscillator oscillates the fine particle by applying an AC voltage to the fine particle contained in the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate.
However, Kisler teaches a high voltage power supply 48 (AC electric field generating section) further configured to apply an AC electric field to a liquid coating adhering to the surface of a web 30 (substrate) (col. 4, lines 58-65 col. 5, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 1-23; see for example Figs. 1-4), for the benefit of enhancing drying (col. 6, lines 8-23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particle oscillator oscillates the fine particle by applying an AC voltage to the fine particle contained in the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate in the apparatus of Dinter, in the manner taught by Kisler, for the benefit of enhancing drying.
The previous rejection of claims 31-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kisler (USP 5152838) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Smith (USP 3868925, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 31-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Faust ( USP 5,110, 618) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Smith (USP 3868925, already of record).
Regarding claims 31, 32, 33, and 35, in the embodiment of Fig. 4, Dinter does not explicitly teach an air guide comprising an outlet connected to a recovering mechanism.
However, Smith teaches a structure 25 (air guide) that covers a part of strip 17 (substrate) and is provided with a first electrode 50 therein; the structure 25 (air guide) comprising a discharge chamber 37 (outlet) configured to discharge a part of the aerosol out of the structure 25 (air guide) (col. 3, lines 20-39; see for example Fig. 1), wherein the discharge chamber 37 (outlet) is connected to a suction source 49 (vacuum pump) configured to supply recovered aerosol to a hopper 47 (supplier) (col. 4, lines 74-75 through col. 5, lines 1-2), for the benefit of minimizing accumulation of aerosol in structure 25 (air guide) which is not deposited on the substrate (for motivation see col. 4, lines 59-68). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an outlet and vacuum pump with the housing 6 (air guide) in the previous art combination above, as taught by Smith, for the benefit of minimizing accumulation of aerosol in housing 6 (air guide) which is not deposited on the substrate.
The previous rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kisler (USP 5152838) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sun (USP 6349668, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Faust ( USP 5,110, 618) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sun (USP 6349668, already of record).
Regarding claim 37, Dinter does not explicitly teach that the atomizing apparatus 8 (mist supplier) including a mist charger configured to positively or negatively charge mist, the mist supplier being configured to supply the mist charged by the mist charger.
However, Sun teaches an aerosol generator 12 (mist supplier) comprising an atomizer 30 (mist charger), including an ultrasonic transducer 69, configured to positively or negatively charge mist, the aerosol generator 12 (mist supplier) configured to supply mist charged by the atomizer 30 (mist charger) (col. 5, lines 66-67 through col. 6, lines 1-55; col. 7, lines 45-67 through col. 8, lines 1-13; see for example Figs. 2, 5, 5A), for the benefit of depositing at an accelerated rate (col. 10, lines 28-58; see for example Fig. 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a mist charger with the apparatus 8 (mist supplier) of Dinter, as taught by Sun, for the benefit of depositing at an accelerated rate.
The previous rejection of claims 6, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kikugawa (US 20150054894, already of record) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 6, Dinter teaches a deposition apparatus comprising:
an atomization apparatus 8 (mist supplier) configured to atomize a liquid containing particles to generate the mist (col. 4, lines 15-45; see for example Fig. 4);
Dinter further teaches a blower 9 and temperature of the liquid to be atomized and the carrier gas may be between 20-95°C (first temperature) (implicit of a mist temperature adjusting section; col. 4, lines 21-29).
Dinter does not explicitly teach a substrate temperature adjusting section that sets a substrate temperature to a second temperature.
However, Kikugawa teaches a roller including cooling units 100 (substrate temperature adjusting section), for the benefit of contacting and cooling the surface of the roller such that rolled sheet 101 (substrate) and applied material are cooled to an appropriate temperature (second temperature) within a short time (para 0038-0039, for motivation see para 0105; see for example Fig. 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a substrate temperature adjusting section with the roller 10 (feeder) of Dinter, as taught by Kikugawa, for the benefit of contacting and cooling the surface of the roller such that web 1 (substrate) and the applied material are cooled to an appropriate temperature (second temperature) within a short time.
The recitation “mist containing fine particles” does not further structurally limit or mechanically modify the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
The particular claimed mist composition does not require modification of the ultrasonic vibrator system of Dinter (see col. 4, lines 29-36), or prior art apparatus as a whole, to be especially adapted to hold and deliver fine particles with the mist. There is no evidence that the ultrasonic vibrator system of Dinter would be unable to deliver various compositions, including the mist composition (see (col. 7, lines 13-35). Thus, there is no mechanical or structural difference between the ultrasonic vibrator system of Dinter and the claimed mist supplier (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Dinter further teaches a roller 10 (feeder) including a (rotating drum) and supports and feeds the substrate in an arc shape (col. 4, lines 3-7; see for example Fig. 1).
However, Kikugawa teaches a roller including cooling units 100 (substrate temperature adjusting section), for the benefit of contacting and cooling the surface of the roller such that rolled sheet 101 (substrate) and applied material are cooled to an appropriate temperature (second temperature) within a short time (para 0038-0039, for motivation see para 0105; see for example Fig. 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a substrate temperature adjusting section with the roller 10 (feeder) of Dinter, as taught by Kikugawa, for the benefit of contacting and cooling the surface of the roller such that web 1 (substrate) and the applied material are cooled to an appropriate temperature (second temperature) within a short time.
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above, the limitation “wherein the liquid is a dispersion in which the fine particles are dispersed in pure water or a liquid containing a surfactant” refers to the coating composition and thus does not further mechanically or structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
However, the apparatus of Dinter is mechanically and structurally operable to deposit various compositions, including the claimed composition, since Dinter also discloses an ultrasonic vibrator system (col. 4, lines 29-36), and the apparatus is capable of manufacturing films with various compositions and there is no limit to the range of substances (col. 7, lines 13-35) (see MPEP 2114(I)).
The previous rejection of claims 12-13 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kikugawa (US 20150054894, already of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Yamane (USP 5063085, already of record) is being maintained.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 34, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach setting the first mist temperature between 0-15°C (i.e., temperature lower than 27°C), or setting the second substrate temperature lower than the mist temperature and also between 0-15°C.
However, Yamane teaches applying paint spray (mist) in a temperature range overlapping 0-15°C, and cooling the coated vehicle (substrate) to a temperature overlapping the range 0-15° C, for the benefit of preventing sagging or dripping (col. 11, lines 4-15; for motivation see col. 11, lines 34-40). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Applicant’s specification discloses “In order to check the optimal value or the like for the temperature of the cooled sheet substrate P, the temperature dependency of the mist adhesion efficiency was investigated” (Spec., para 0122). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mist temperature to 0-15°C, and modify the substrate temperature to be lower than the mist temperature between 0-15°C, for the benefit of preventing sagging or dripping.
As mentioned above, the limitation “wherein the liquid is a dispersion in which the fine particles are dispersed in pure water or a liquid containing a surfactant” refers to the coating composition and thus does not further mechanically or structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115). However, the apparatus of Dinter is mechanically and structurally operable to deposit various compositions, including the claimed composition, since Dinter also discloses an ultrasonic vibrator system (col. 4, lines 29-36), and the apparatus is capable of manufacturing films with various compositions and there is no limit to the range of substances (col. 7, lines 13-35) (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Claims 1, 36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Yoon ( USP 20160139312 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Dinter teaches a deposition apparatus comprising:
an atomizing apparatus 8 (mist supplier) mechanically configured to supply a web 1 (substrate) with mist containing fine particles (col. 4, lines 15-45; col. 6, lines 40-64; see for example Fig. 4).
Dinter further teaches a feeder including a supporting mechanism ( roller 10) configured to support the substrate and configured to feed the substrate (web 1), (Dinter, Abstract, col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4 . ).
Dinter does not explicitly teach a particle oscillator disposed downstream of the mist supplier in a direction in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particle.
Yoon is directed to coating a substrate with a coating solution.
Yoon teaches a particle oscillator (140) disposed downstream of the mist supplier (end of nozzle attached to 140) in a direction (left to right) in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particles. (See Yoon, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 15-17, 27, 41-42, 47, 50-51, and 54.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a particle oscillator disposed downstream of the mist supplier in a direction in which the substrate is fed and configured to oscillate the fine particle, because Yoon teaches this structure reduces the amount of solution used while minimizing surface defects and improving optical properties. (See Yoon, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 15-17, 27, 41-42, 47, 50-51, and 54.)
Regarding claim 36, Dinter further teaches a roller 10 (feeder) including a rotating drum including a conductive outer peripheral surface, and the roller 10 (feeder, rotating drum) support the web 1 (substrate) in an arc shape (col. 4, lines 3-7; col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-4; col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 42, Dinter teaches the particle oscillator includes a first electrode 27 (col. 6, lines 40-64; see for example Fig. 4); and
a core 2 (second electrode) (col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4), and
an electrostatic field generator 5 (AC electric field generating section). (col. 4, lines 45-68 through col. 5, lines 1-8; see for example Fig. 4).
Claims 3-4 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Kisler (USP 5152838) and Yoon ( USP 20160139312 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Taylor-Brown (USP 4060648, already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Dinter teaches a first electrode 27 facing the mist adhering to a surface of the substrate (col. 6, lines 40-64; see for example Fig. 4); and
a core 2 (second electrode) provided on a back surface of the web 1 (substrate) (col. 6, lines 50-52; see for example Fig. 4), and
an electrostatic field generator 5 (AC electric field generating section) configured to apply an AC voltage to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode. (col. 4, lines 45-68 through col. 5, lines 1-8; see for example Fig. 4).
Dinter does not explicitly teach wherein the electrostatic field generator 5 (AC electric field generating section) being further configured to apply an AC electric field to the mist adhering to the surface of the web 1 (substrate).
However, Kisler teaches a high voltage power supply 48 (AC electric field generating section) further configured to apply an AC electric field to a liquid coating adhering to the surface of a web 30 (substrate) (col. 4, lines 58-65 col. 5, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 1-23; see for example Figs. 1-4), for the benefit of enhancing drying (col. 6, lines 8-23). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the AC electric field generating section in the apparatus of Dinter, in the manner taught by Kisler, for the benefit of enhancing drying.
Regarding claim 3, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach the AC electric field generator is configured to apply to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is greater than zero.
However, Taylor-Brown teaches the strength of the AC potential required to achieve an excited particle cloud will depend on various factors including the frequency of the AC field, the size of the particles, the specific gravity of the material of the particles, the orientation of the electrodes, the separation of the electrodes, and on the conductivity of the particles and the density of the field required ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. ) . Taylor-Brown further teaches supplying an AC potential in the ranges of 2 to 10 KV at a frequency of 50 Hertz is applicable to a wide range of materials in particulate form when the particle size lies within the region up to 20 mil and for substantially vertically opposed electrodes spaced apart by a distance up to 0.3 inch. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrostatic field generator in Dinter to include an AC electric field generator is configured to apply to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is greater than zero, as taught by Taylor-Brown, for the benefit of achieving an excited particle cloud. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
Regarding claim 4, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach the AC electric field generator applies to at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is smaller than zero.
However, Taylor-Brown teaches the strength of the AC potential required to achieve an excited particle cloud will depend on various factors including the frequency of the AC field, the size of the particles, the specific gravity of the material of the particles, the orientation of the electrodes, the separation of the electrodes, and on the conductivity of the particles and the density of the field required ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. ) . Taylor-Brown further teaches supplying an AC potential in the ranges of 2 to 10 KV at a frequency of 50 Hertz is applicable to a wide range of materials in particulate form when the particle size lies within the region up to 20 mil and for substantially vertically opposed electrodes spaced apart by a distance up to 0.3 inch. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrostatic field generator in Dinter to include an AC electric field generator is configured to apply to at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode an AC voltage that changes over time with a prescribed amplitude centered on an average voltage whose absolute value is smaller than zero, as taught by Taylor-Brown, for the benefit of achieving an excited particle cloud. ( See Taylor-Brown, Abstract, col. 2, lines 32-52. )
Regarding claim 40, Dinter does not explicitly teach wherein the particle oscillator oscillates the fine particle by applying an AC voltage to the fine particle contained in the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate.
However, Kisler teaches a high voltage power supply 48 (AC electric field generating section) further configured to apply an AC electric field to a liquid coating adhering to the surface of a web 30 (substrate) (col. 4, lines 58-65 col. 5, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 65-68 through col. 6, lines 1-23; see for example Figs. 1-4), for the benefit of enhancing drying (col. 6, lines 8-23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particle oscillator oscillates the fine particle by applying an AC voltage to the fine particle contained in the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate in the apparatus of Dinter, in the manner taught by Kisler, for the benefit of enhancing drying.
Claims 31-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Yoon ( USP 20160139312 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Smith (USP 3868925, already of record).
Regarding claims 31, 32, 33, and 35, in the embodiment of Fig. 4, Dinter does not explicitly teach an air guide comprising an outlet connected to a recovering mechanism.
However, Smith teaches a structure 25 (air guide) that covers a part of strip 17 (substrate) and is provided with a first electrode 50 therein; the structure 25 (air guide) comprising a discharge chamber 37 (outlet) configured to discharge a part of the aerosol out of the structure 25 (air guide) (col. 3, lines 20-39; see for example Fig. 1), wherein the discharge chamber 37 (outlet) is connected to a suction source 49 (vacuum pump) configured to supply recovered aerosol to a hopper 47 (supplier) (col. 4, lines 74-75 through col. 5, lines 1-2), for the benefit of minimizing accumulation of aerosol in structure 25 (air guide) which is not deposited on the substrate (for motivation see col. 4, lines 59-68). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an outlet and vacuum pump with the housing 6 (air guide) in the previous art combination above, as taught by Smith, for the benefit of minimizing accumulation of aerosol in housing 6 (air guide) which is not deposited on the substrate.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Yoon ( USP 20160139312 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sun (USP 6349668, already of record).
Regarding claim 37, Dinter does not explicitly teach that the atomizing apparatus 8 (mist supplier) including a mist charger configured to positively or negatively charge mist, the mist supplier being configured to supply the mist charged by the mist charger.
However, Sun teaches an aerosol generator 12 (mist supplier) comprising an atomizer 30 (mist charger), including an ultrasonic transducer 69, configured to positively or negatively charge mist, the aerosol generator 12 (mist supplier) configured to supply mist charged by the atomizer 30 (mist charger) (col. 5, lines 66-67 through col. 6, lines 1-55; col. 7, lines 45-67 through col. 8, lines 1-13; see for example Figs. 2, 5, 5A), for the benefit of depositing at an accelerated rate (col. 10, lines 28-58; see for example Fig. 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a mist charger with the apparatus 8 (mist supplier) of Dinter, as taught by Sun, for the benefit of depositing at an accelerated rate.
Claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinter (USP 4940521, already of record) in view of Yoon ( USP 20160139312 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Faust (USP 5110618, already of record).
Regarding claim 39, Dinter does not explicitly teach a drier configured to dry the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate, wherein the drier is disposed downstream of the mist supplier in the direction in which the substrate is fed.
Faust teaches a drier (14) configured to dry the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate, wherein the drier is disposed downstream of the mist supplier in the direction in which the substrate is fed. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 25-40 and col. 5, lines 20-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a drier configured to dry the mist adhering to the surface of the substrate, wherein the drier is disposed downstream of the mist supplier in the direction in which the substrate is fed, because Faust teaches this structure allows the coating to be fused to the substrate. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 25-40 and col. 5, lines 20-25.)
Regarding claim 41, Dinter does not explicitly teach the fine particle has polarity.
Faust teaches the fine particle has polarity. (See Faust, Abstract, Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 25-40 and col. 5, lines 20-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fine particle with polarity, because Faust teaches the fine particles having opposed charging with the substrate can lead to a surface-covering film of the substrate to be achieved. (See Faust, Abstract, col. 7, lines 8-37.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights