DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on December 22, 2025 was received. Claims 10 and 12 were canceled. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued October 7, 2025.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn because claim 12 has been amended.
Claim Interpretation
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) are:
transport mechanism in claim 1;
pre-treatment mechanism in claim 9.
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 § 112
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 8-9 are withdrawn because applicants response filed December 22, 2025 was persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zur (US 2008/0012884) in view of Jackson (US 2020/0141034).
In regards to claim 1, Ben-Zur teaches a printing system comprising:
a Y-axis moving plate (18, first fixture) which holds a printing head (16) (fig. 1-2; para. 73);
at least two processing lines (see two X-axis stages (12)) (fig. 2; para. 78), where each line comprises:
a printing section (see area where printing head (16) moves across) is a location where ink is applied to a surface (fig. 2; para. 73-74, 78, 84);
a curing (sintering) section (see area where curing unit (20) is located) where the applied ink is dried (fig. 2; para. 76, 78);
a X-axis stage (12, transport mechanism) moves a printing table assembly (13) from the printing section to the curing section (fig. 2; para. 71-72, 78);
where the Y-axis moving plate moves the printhead between the two printing table assemblies (fig. 2; para. 78).
Ben-Zur does not explicitly teach three-dimensional electronic device or printing a functional layer on a surface of the electronic device.
However, the particular type of substrate or processing materials used is a process limitation rather than an apparatus limitation, and the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
As Ben-Zur teach the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of positioning an electronic device on the printing table assembly and using the printing head to deposit the functional layer onto the electronic device, thus fulfilling the limitations of the claim.
Ben-Zur does not explicitly teach curing unit comprises a UV-light emitter.
However, Jackson teaches a system for treatment of thread comprising a printer module (16) which has a printhead (44) and curing station (46). Jackson teaches curing station used UV curing to quickly cure coating applied by the printhead (fig. 3; para. 27, 29, 38-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the UV curing provided by the curing station of Jackson onto the curing unit of Ben-Zur because Jackson teaches it will allow the weft thread to travel through the printer module with minimal delay for printing and/or curing (para. 40).
In regards to claim 2, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed, where Ben-Zur teaches the printing section and the curing (sintering) section of each processing line are co-linearly arranged (fig. 2).
In regards to claim 3, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed, where Ben-Zur teaches the two processing line are parallel to each other (fig. 2).
In regards to claim 4, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed, where Ben-Zur teaches the printing table assembly (13, support) is provided for each of the processing lines, where the printing table assembly is moveable relative to the printing head (fig. 2; para. 73, 78).
In regards to claim 5, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed, where Ben-Zur teaches the printing table assembly (13, support) is moved by the X-axis stages (12) and is moveable relative to the printing head (fig. 2; para. 73, 78).
In regards to claim 6, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed, where Ben-Zur teaches the X-axis stages (12) span between the printing section and the curing (sintering) section and provides a configuration which allows for reciprocation between the sections (fig. 2; para. 76).
In regards to claim 7, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed, where Ben-Zur teaches the X-axis stages is a sliding carriage (para. 71).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zur and Jackson as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Sigismondo (US 2011/0285800).
In regards to claims 8-9, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed but do not explicitly teach a pre-treatment section which includes a device selected from the group consisting of a hard UV emitter, an excimer laser or an atmospheric plasma-generating device.
However, Sigismondo teaches a printing system comprising a plasma and/or corona treatment (112, atmospheric plasma generating device) is provided upstream of printer heads (120). Sigismondo teaches pretreatment of the surface improves surface adhesion of the ink (fig. 1; para. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the plasma pre-treatment of Sigismondo onto the printing system of Ben-Zur and Jackson because Sigismondo teaches it will improve adhesion.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zur and Jackson as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Tae (KR20190092163A, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claims 11 and 13, Ben-Zur and Jackson as discussed but do not explicitly a second fixture that holds a second print head the second fixture is arranged within a protection layer printing section downstream of the sintering section, and wherein the transport mechanism moves from the printing section, to the protection layer printing section and to the sintering section the second fixture is movable from one of the at least two processing lines to the other of the at least two processing lines.
However, Tae teaches an inkjet printing apparatus comprising a first print head-110a and a second print head-110n, where the printheads apply a plurality of layers on to the substrate. Tae teaches the printheads are on mounting fixtures, where the second print head-110n is on a second mounting fixture (fig. 5-6, 8; para. 73-75, 81- 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the second print head on the second fixture that is downstream of the first print head on the first fixture of Tae onto the printing system of Ben-Zur and Jackson because Tae teaches it will provide improved processing of the substrate (para. 84).
With regards to the second fixture is movable from one of the at least two processing lines to the other of the at least two processing lines, as Ben-Zur teaches this feature for the first print head, devising the second printhead to be movable between the two processing lines would represent a simple duplication and/or rearrangement of parts that would not alter the function of the apparatus in a patentably distinct way over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Ben-Zur does not teach a UV-light emitter, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have had any rational reason to modify Ben-Zur to include such a feature. The printing system in Ben-Zur is primarily directed at garment printing. It is well known in the industry that UV light bleaches garment dyes, particularly when the UV light is irradiated at higher intensities that are required for converting a functional ink into a functional structure .
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
While applicants argument is reasonable, it is not persuasive. The field of textiles does use UV curing as expressed above. Additional references of Allen (US 20190202214) and Ohnishi (US 20180065379) show the involvement of UV curing in the field of textiles.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717