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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending and rejected. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to indicate that the photocurable ink is ejected onto areas that are non-conductive areas of the substrate and that the volatile ink is ejected onto conductive areas between the insulation areas, however, since the substrate has a uniform surface energy, it is unclear whether the substrate itself has non-conductive and conductive areas, i.e., materials or coatings, or whether these are planned areas of the substrate that will be conductive or nonconductive once the ink is applied. Further, the claim describes “preset virtual insulation areas”, however, it is unclear what a “preset virtual insulation area” is. Paragraph 0062 of the instant specification indicates that the conductive area may be a preset virtual area disposed on a surface of the substrate. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments dated 12/15/2025 indicates that the non-conductive and conductive areas are to be preset virtual areas on the substrate. For the purposes of examination, “preset virtual areas” is being interpreted as an area on the substrate to which the photocurable or volatile metal ink is intended to be ejected. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as though the conductive area is a preset virtual area where the conductive ink is to be printed.
Since none of the dependent claims remedy the clarity of claim 1, they are also rendered indefinite. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires that the photocurable ink is ejected onto an insulation area to be formed a non-conductive area, however, claim 1 has been amended to require that photocurable ink is ejected onto preset virtual insulation areas that are non-conductive areas of the substrate and that the volatile ink is ejected onto conductive areas between the insulation areas. Therefore, it is not clear how the insulation area and the conductive area of claim 4 relate to the “preset virtual insulation areas” and “preset virtual conductive areas” (as interpreted and discussed above) of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the insulation area and conductive area are interpreted as being the same as the areas of claim 1. Since claim 5 does not remedy the issues of claim 4, it is also rendered indefinite. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski, US 2006/0159838 A1 in view of Schlatterbeck, US 2016/0250877 A1, Wang, US 2017/0107388 A1, Yabe, US 2002/0039624 A1, and Ohnishi, US 10,744,804 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Kowalski teaches a process for controlling ink migration during the formation of printable electronic features (abstract). They teach (a) providing a first substrate having a base substrate and a barrier layer disposed thereon; and (b) applying an ink on to (or adjacent to) at least a portion of the barrier layer, wherein the barrier layer interacts with the ink to inhibit either or both lateral migration and/or longitudinal migration of the applied ink, and wherein the applied ink ultimately forms at least a portion of the electronic feature (0013). They teach that the electronic ink composition includes metallic particles, where the size includes nanometer and micron sizes so as to provide minute metal particles (0037). They teach inkjet printing the electronic ink (0051, 0070, 0100, 0104-0105). They teach that the inks include liquid vehicles and the electronic ink can be dried with heat so as to provide a volatile ink containing minute metal particles (0067 and 0102). They teach (a) providing a first substrate having a first surface; (b) modifying the first surface to form a modified surface; and (c) applying an ink to at least a portion of the modified surface (0157). They teach that the modification of the first surface to form the modified surface may be achieved by a variety of modification techniques including (1) providing a physical barrier composition to limit either or both longitudinal mink migration and/or lateral ink migration; (2) modifying the substrate surface energy, etc. (0158). They teach that retaining barriers can be deposited by ink-jet printing, where a polymer trench can be ink-jet printed onto a flat substrate by depositing two parallel lines with narrow parallel spacing and an electronic ink can be printed between the inks (0161-0163 and Fig. 1). They teach applying the barrier by inkjet printing where it is preferred for the barrier medium to be at least partially cured to form the barrier composition prior to the application of the electronic ink (0165). They teach that it is preferred that the barrier medium is applied before the electronic ink (0167). They teach using the electronic ink to form conductive features (0119). Therefore, Kowalski teaches a method of forming fine conductive patterns using an inkjet printing process (where the electronic ink is printed between the trenches to form fine patterns) by performing a droplet ejection process, i.e., inkjet printing a barrier ink first that is at least partially cured prior to inkjet printing an electronic ink which is considered a volatile ink.
Since they teach modifying the surface of the substrate by applying the barriers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a substrate having a uniform surface energy because Kowalski teaches using the printed barriers for controlling the ink as a surface modification as an alternative to modifying the surface energy such that it will be expected to provide a suitable surface for printing.
Kowalski further teaches that the barrier medium and/or the barrier composition formed therefrom is substantially non-conductive so that it does not electrically interfere with the electronic feature that is ultimately formed (0167). Therefore, since they teach depositing the polymer trench at a narrow spacing where the conductive ink is deposited between the polymer lines, where the polymer for the barrier is non-conductive, the process is also expected to provide preset virtual insulation areas where the polymer is to be deposited and preset virtual conductive areas between the insulation areas where the volatile metal ink is to be deposited.
They do not teach forming the barriers by curing a polymer material while it is ejected.
Schlatterbeck teaches a method for producing polymer particles in which a fluid preparation is ejected in drop form from a nozzle of an inkjet print heat and radiation from a radiation source is directed on the droplets in flight, whereby the fluid preparation is at least partially cured by irradiation, so that the particles are obtained from the fluid drops before impact or collection (abstract). They teach that the fluid includes a prepolymer, an oligomer, monomers, or reactive diluents as well as at least one photoinitiator (abstract). They teach that the process provides a coating whose surface is rough or textured (0020). They teach that curing is carried out by polymerization and/or crosslinking reactions (0024). They teach that by irradiating the droplets in flight, the individual droplets are at least partially cured, which curing progressing from the fluid state via a gel or sol/gel state to the solid state (0030). They teach that the achievable state depends on the UV dose (0030). They teach that the rough coating is applied in a laterally textured manner (0055). They teach using the process to provide three-dimensional structures (0071). They teach that the polymer particles may be fully or partially cured (0073). They teach fully curing the layer if complete curing during flight has not already taken place (0108).
From the teachings of Schlatterbeck, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kowalski to have inkjet deposited a photocurable polymer layer as the barrier layer and to have partially cured the barrier layer during ejection or flight by setting an appropriate UV dose of a UV light because Schlatterbeck teaches that such a process provides a partially cured textured three-dimensional polymer layer such that it will be expected to provide the barrier layer as desired by Kowalski as a partially cured trench. Therefore, the light intensity or UV dose will be set so that the photocurable ink is in a semi-cured and gel state when ejected on the substrate so as to form a trench with the liquid volatile ink ejected on the substrate within the trench. Therefore, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck provide a light intensity set so that the photocurable ink is in a semi-cured and gel state when ejected on the substrate to form gelled partition walls (trenches or barriers) that define the insulation areas and form a boundary with liquid-state volatile ink ejected between the partition walls.
They do not teach simultaneously performing the discharging.
Wang teaches a radiation-curable ink composition for application by an inkjet printer (abstract). They teach that the ink includes a UV-curable component (abstract). They teach that UV-curable component facilitates activation of polymerization upon exposure to UV radiation, which causes the ink composition to cure and fix/pin to the underlying substrate (abstract). They teach that after the ink is applied to the substrate, the composition can be quickly cured and fixed to the substrate upon exposure to UV radiation (0011). They teach using a single pass roll to roll inkjet system (0065 and Fig. 1). They teach that the system moves the substrate from substrate holder 131a to substrate holder 131b, where the substrate 150 passes under one or more print heats 104 and one or more UV radiation emitters 126 (0065 and Fig. 1). They teach that print heads 104 jet out ink drops 106 onto the substrate, where each print head can print a different type/color/formulation/composition/etc. of ink (0072 and Fig. 1). They teach that first print head 104a can jet a first ink composition and print head 104b can jet a second ink composition, where both compositions can be jetted and UV cured during a single pass of the substrate through the system (0072 and Fig. 1). They teach curing the ink after each layer is applied to stabilize the ink after jetting (0074).
Yabe teaches depositing barrier ribs on a back plate for use in a flat panel display by delivering a lift-off resist from a nozzle to form relief patterns while moving the nozzle and the back plate relative to each other, curing the lift-off resist, filling a rib material into the spaces between the relief patterns, and curing the rib material (0021-0027). They teach that the apparatus incudes a delivery unit 60a, a filling unit 60b, and a removal unit 60c (0093 and Fig. 6). They teach that the delivery unit 60a has a nozzle 41 connected to a lift-off resist tank (0094 and Fig. 6). They teach that nozzle 41 defines a plurality of discharge openings 41a (0095 and Fig. 7). They teach that filling unit 60b includes a slit nozzle for delivering the rib material to the back plate (0098 and Fig. 6). They teach that delivering the lift-off resist from nozzle 41 and curing using light emitter 19 (0104). They teach using filling unit 60b to supply the rib material and baking to cure (0105). They teach that the units may be operated simultaneously, with the back plate moved only once (0111). They teach that the barrier ribs may be formed by locally forming relief patterns, filling the rib material, provisionally baking the rib material and removing the relief patterns, with the back plate moved continuously so as to reduce the process time (0111).
From the teachings of Wang and Yabe, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck to have used the inkjet printing system of Wang so as to have printed the polymer barrier and the volatile metal ink simultaneously, with the photocurable ink being in the front side of the path and the volatile metal ink in the rear path because Wang provides an inkjet printing system that is capable of printing two inks in a single pass along with a UV light for curing, Yabe teaches that a trench-forming material and a filling material can be printed simultaneously to reduce process time, and Kowalski teaches that it is desirable to print the trench or barrier material prior to the electronic ink such that it will be expected to print the inks as desired with the barrier ink printed and partially cured first during flight and then printing the volatile metal ink adjacent to the partially cured barrier layer while also improving the efficiency of the printing process by providing a single pass system. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have completely cured the photocurable ink using the UV source after deposition of the ink because Wang teaches that the curing can pin the material to the surface of the substrate to stabilize it and Schlatterbeck teaches fully curing the ink after deposition if it is not completely cured such that it will be expected to completely pin and solidify the barrier after deposition. Therefore, the inks will be simultaneously ejected on to the substrate with the photocurable ink being ejected in a semi-cured state to act as the boundary or trench for the volatile ink as desired by Kowalski.
Further, since Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, and Yabe suggest depositing the barrier to form a boundary for the ink, where Schlatterbeck indicates that by curing the drops during ejection provides three-dimensional structures, and Yabe teaches depositing a barrier and then filling the barrier simultaneously, the process is also expected to provide the boundary or three-dimensional partitions for the volatile ink without spreading such that the volatile ink will be supplied before the gelled partition walls are spread on the substrate so as to suppress spreading of the photocurable ink and form a barrier so as to suppress spreading of the photocurable ink.
As to the droplet size, Kowalski teaches that each drop generated by the inkjet head includes approximately 3 to about 100 picolitres of the composition (0105). They also teach forming features with a minimum feature size of not greater than about 10 microns (0129).
Schlatterbeck further teaches using a print head to eject droplets with a volume in the range of 0.01 to 500 pL, preferably up to 0.1 to 25 pL (0090).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ejected the photocurable ink and the volatile ink using a droplet volume in the range of 0.01 to 500 pL or 0.1 to 25 pL because Schlatterbeck teaches that such a droplet volume is supplied by an inkjet printer, where the range overlaps the range of Kowalski, and by supplying a smaller droplet volume it will be expected to be capable of forming smaller features as desired by Kowalski. Therefore, the droplet volume overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
They do not teach performing the inkjet printing in a sealed space having a helium gas atmosphere.
Ohnishi teaches an inkjet printing apparatus (abstract). They provide a plurality of printing modes including a high-speed, high-resolution printing mode or regular printing mode, high-resolution and wide-gap printing mode, and super wide-gap printing mode (Col. 3, line 8-43). They teach that when a concentration of helium gas in the ink droplet flying space is kept at 60 vol% or more, a gas density in the ink droplet flying space is reduced to about a half of a gas density when air is filling the space (Col. 4, lines 50-62). They teach that due to the decreased gas density, a longitudinal ejection speed Vi increases to a higher speed than the transverse speed Vy which is the carriage speed between the head unit and the recording medium which diminishes adverse impact from the transverse speed and allows of a high-quality print result to be obtained (Col. 4, lines 50-62 and Fig. 6). They teach that by replacing air in the droplet flying space with helium, air resistance (gas resistance) effected on the ink droplets is reduced to provide a high-quality print result (Col. 5, lines 21-33). They teach that the gas can be replaced by helium in any of the print modes (Col. 7, lines 26-33 and Fig. 2). They teach printing in an isolation chamber 55 that encapsulates the head unit and mounting unit (Col. 8, lines 46-57 and Fig. 3). They teach that a vacuum pump suctions air out of the isolation chamber and a helium gas tube is coupled to a gas replacement device to introduce helium gas into the isolation chamber (Col. 8, lines 46-57 and Fig. 3). They teach that the high-resolution and wide-gap printing mode in the second printing mode and super wide-gap printing mode in the third printing mode may offer improved printability with ink droplets of 1 pL or less to provide a super high-resolution print with line widths of 50 microns or less (Col. 13, lines 25-33).
From the teachings of Ohnishi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the printing in a sealed space having a helium gas atmosphere because Ohnishi teaches that replacing air in a droplet flying space in a sealed space (isolation chamber) with helium provides the benefits of reducing air/gas resistance on the droplets so as to provide a high-quality resolution, where the second and third printing mode (all of which can be used with helium) provide improve printability with ink droplets of 1 pL or less (overlapping the range suggested above) to provide line widths of 50 microns or less (overlapping the range desired by Kowalski) such that it will be expected to improve the print quality of the features in the process of Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, and Yabe.
Regarding claim 2, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi suggest the process of claim 1. Kowalski further teaches drying or removing the liquid vehicle in the volatile ink after deposition (0102, 0113-0114).
Regarding claim 3, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi suggest the process of claim 2. Kowalski further teaches that the features can be deposited by ink-jet printing a single droplet or multiple droplets at the same location with or without drying in between deposition of droplets or periods of multiple droplet deposition (0129). Therefore, they teach ejecting the volatile ink onto the substrate, drying, and again ejecting and drying the ink onto the same spot so as to provide the claimed thick film process of additionally ejecting and drying the volatile ink onto the conductive fine pattern at least one time.
Regarding claim 4, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi suggest the process of claim 1. As noted above, Kowalski further teaches that the barrier medium and/or the barrier composition formed therefrom is substantially non-conductive so that it does not electrically interfere with the electronic feature that is ultimately formed (0167). Therefore, the photocurable ink will be ejected on an insulation area to be formed as a non-conductive area, i.e., deposited on to the preset virtual insulation areas.
Kowalski teaches that the electronic feature formed from the electronic ink includes a conductor or a conductive pattern (0142 and 0151). Therefore, the volatile ink is ejected on a conductive area to be formed as a conductive fine pattern so as to be deposited onto preset virtual conductive areas.
Regarding claim 5, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi suggest the process of claim 4. Kowalski further teaches that a polymer trench can be inkjet printed by depositing two parallel lines with narrow parallel spacing and an electronic ink can be printed between the two parallel lines (0162). They teach that the features are in the form of lines (0143), indicating that multiple lines are provided. Therefore, the insulation area where the barrier/photocurable ink is printed comprises a plurality of line-shaped areas that are spaced apart from each other, and the conductive area comprises areas between the plurality of line-shaped areas.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, and Ohnishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurosawa, JP 2003318133 A (provided on the IDS of 8/21/2024).
The following citations for Kurosawa, JP 2003318133 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claim 6, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi suggest the process of instant claim 1. As discussed above for claim 5, Kowalski teaches forming the features in the form of lines.
Wang teaches using different print heads to eject different inks (0072).
They do not teach the arrangement of the nozzles.
Kurosawa teaches a method for forming a conductive film wiring used for wiring electrodes, antennas, electronic circuits, integrated circuits, etc. (0001). They teach that a plurality of film patterns, each having a different function, can be formed simultaneously, and therefore the efficiency of the manufacturing process can be improved (0013). They teach that by discharging a plurality of droplets at positions adjacent to each other in a direction parallel to the substrate, the plurality of film patterns can be formed so as to be adjacent to each other in a direction parallel to the substrate (0014). They teach that the plurality of droplets may include first droplets and second droplets, the first droplets being a liquid material containing conductive fine particles as the film-forming component, and the second droplets being a liquid material containing an insulator as the film-forming component (0018). They each that the insulating film can be formed at the same time as a conductive film (0018). They teach that the film pattern forming device can include one head capable of ejecting the plurality of droplets or a dedicated head can be provided for each of the droplets constituting the plurality of droplets (0026). They teach forming the pattern by an inkjet method (0033). They teach discharging the first and second droplets 22a and 24a and a step of solidifying them (0035 and Fig. 1-2). They teach that inkjet head 12 is used in which nozzles 11a for ejecting a liquid material containing conductive fine particles and nozzles 11b for ejecting a liquid material containing an insulator are arranged alternately (0037 and Fig. 1). They teach that while moving the inkjet head 12 in the Y direction, a first droplet 22a and a second droplet 24a are ejected at adjacent positions in a direction parallel to the substrate 10 so as to provide the first droplets 22a and the second droplets 24a arranged alternately in the X direction (0037 and Fig. 1-2). Therefore, they teach discharging an insulating and conductive ink simultaneously for forming conductive patterns, where the nozzles are arranged alternately and where a dedicated printhead can be used for each of the droplets, where the nozzles are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the print path (Fig. 1-2).
From the teachings of Kurosawa, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi to have discharged the photocurable ink through a plurality of nozzles in a first discharge head, which are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the printing path and to have discharged the volatile ink through a plurality of nozzles of a second discharge head which are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the path, where the nozzles of the first discharge head and the second discharge head are alternately arranged because Kurosawa teaches forming lines of conductive features and insulating features, where nozzles of the conductive ink are alternately arranged with nozzles for the insulating ink, where the nozzles are perpendicular to the printing path, and where dedicated print heads can be used for the droplets, Kowalski teaches printing conductive lines, where the insulating barrier material is on either side of the conductive lines, and Wang teaches using different print heads for each ink such that it will be expected to provide a desirable pattern of conductive lines on the substrate with the insulating barrier material and conductive material being printed alternately so that the conductive ink is contained by the insulating barrier.
Regarding claim 7, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, Ohnishi, and Kurosawa suggest the process of claim 6. As discussed above for claim 1, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, and Ohnishi suggest printing the photocurable ink as a physical barrier to limit ink migration. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the nozzles of the first discharge head and the nozzles of the second discharge head so that an outermost nozzle of the second discharge head is disposed at an inner side of an outermost nozzle of the first discharge head so as to ensure that the outermost conductive ink line is printed between the physical barriers to limit the ink migration as desired by Kowalski.
Regarding claim 8, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, Ohnishi, and Kurosawa suggest the process of claim 6. While they do not specifically teach that the first discharge head and the second discharge head have the same width to cover and entire width of the substrate, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged that first and second heads to cover the entire width of the substrate because it will provide the benefits of enabling the inks to be printed across the width of the substrate in a single pass so as to improve the efficiency of the process. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the heads to be in series in front and rear directions of the path so that the photocurable printhead is provided in front of the volatile ink printhead so that the barrier ink is applied first so as to be able to limit the migration of the volatile ink.
Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, Ohnishi, and Kurosawa as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jackson, US 2005/0140763 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, Yabe, Ohnishi, and Kurosawa suggest the process of claim 6.
They do not specifically teach that the discharge heads cover the entire width of the substrate.
Jackson teaches a method of inkjet printing designed for high speed, high quality, and high resolution (abstract). They teach that the printhead spans the width of the substrate (0089 and Fig. 1). They teach that full-width arrays, in which the printhead is at least as wide as the print medium so an image can be printed in a single pass with the substrate moving under the printhead in a direction perpendicular to the array, improve throughput limitation and are now commercially and technically viable (0007).
From the teachings of Jackson, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used printheads having a width to cover an entire width of the substrate because Jackson teaches that a full-width array improves throughput such that it will be expected to improve the efficiency of the process by allowing printing on the substrate in a single pass. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the printheads in series in front and rear directions of the path because it will provide the first printhead in front of the second printhead for printing the barriers first as desired by Kowalski.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/15/2025 have been fully considered. In light of the amendment to the claims, new 112(b) rejections have been made and the new reference of Ohnishi has been added.
Applicant’s argument over printing in a helium atmosphere is considered persuasive and therefore, the new reference of Ohnishi has been added. As to the droplet size, it is noted that Schlatterbeck suggests using a volume overlapping the claimed range. Ohnishi also indicates that helium provides the benefits of low density and improves resolution, where the printing modes that can include helium atmosphere are suitable with droplet sizes of less than 1 pL. Therefore, the helium atmosphere is also expected to provide the benefits described by Ohnishi in the process of Kowalski in view of Schlatterbeck, Wang, and Yabe.
As to Applicant’s assertion that the helium atmosphere is critical when using droplets of 0.6 pL or less, it is noted that Ohnishi teaches that helium provides reduced air/gas resistance, lower density, and provides improved resolution. They further indicate that second and third printing mode (either of which can include helium) provide improved resolution with droplets of 1 pL or less, indicating that it is known to use helium with smaller droplet sizes. Further, it is not clear whether a droplet size of 0.6 pL or less is critical when Ohnishi indicates that a droplet size of 1 pL or less is suitable. Further, the claim does not require a specific resolution, printing speed, etc. to indicate that the combination of droplet size and ambient gas is critical. Therefore, the assertion of criticality is not considered to be commensurate in scope with what is claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Kowalski and having a uniform surface energy, as discussed above Kowalski teaches various methods of modifying the surface, where one of the methods is modifying the surface energy and another method is providing a physical barrier (0157-0158). Therefore, it is suggested to have used a substrate having a uniform surface energy and to have applied the barrier to the substrate as the means of modifying the substrate since it is indicated as being an alternative to modifying the surface energy. While Applicant argues that the process of Kowalski uses physical structures as opposed to virtual areas, it is noted that the claim requires depositing the photocurable ink onto the virtual areas to provide a physical barrier for suppressing ink migration. Therefore, in the process of Kowalski, the regions on the substrate where the barrier is to be deposited is considered to provide the virtual insulation area and the areas where the metal ink is applied provide the virtual conductive areas because these are the preset regions where the inks are to be printed. Therefore, Kowalski provide depositing the barrier as a means of suppressing ink migration, where since there is no indication that the barrier needs to be provided with surface modification, the substrate is suggested to have a uniform surface energy.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Schlatterbeck’s curing is not linked to helium or to sub-picolitre operation, as noted above Schlatterbeck teaches using droplet volumes of 0.01 to 500 pL (0090). Therefore, they provide a sub-picolitre operation. Further, there is no indication in Schlatterbeck that the surface has a non-uniform surface energy, suggesting that a surface of uniform energy is suitable.
As to Applicant’s arguments over Wang, it is noted that Kowalski provides the suggestion of using a uniform surface energy, Schlatterbeck suggests using a droplet volume overlapping the claimed range, and Ohnishi suggests using a helium atmosphere.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Yabe, the trench structures of Yabe are considered to be similar to the trench features of Kowalski in that they provide a physical barrier for containing another ink.
As to Applicant’s argument over “virtual area” patterning, it is not clear what “virtual area” patterning is. Specifically, the claims are interpreted as though the areas on which the inks are to be printed provide the “virtual areas” in that they are the areas determined to be printed with the desired inks in the printing process.
As to the light intensity and timing between droplet ejection and curing, it is noted that Schlatterbeck suggests setting the light intensity for providing the desired gelling during flight.
Regarding Applicants’ argument over claim 5, as noted above, Kowalski is not considered to require surface energy modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718