DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on April 6, 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 through 17 continue to remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 7, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 6, 2026. These drawings, for replacement of Figures 1A, 1B, 6A and 6B, have been approved for entry by the examiner.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification, title and abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In Claim 1, it is unclear if the latter recitation of “a viscosity higher than 50 Pa.s” (line 11) is referring to an earlier recitation of “a viscosity higher than 50 Pa.s” (line 2). Are these phrases referring to the same viscosity?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 through 6, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2002/0000190 to Neuhaus (hereinafter “Neuhaus”) in view of the teachings of U.S. Publication 2016/0229213 to Neuhaus (hereinafter “Neuhaus’213”), U.S. Patent 4,945,833 to Arahara et al (hereinafter “Arahara”), and U.S. Publication 2019/0023051 to Kusaka et al (hereinafter “Kusaka”).
Claim 1: Neuhaus discloses a transfer device for transferring of a viscous functional material in viscous form (e.g. ink) onto a receiving substrate (20, see Figs. 5 to 9), comprising:
a plate (e.g. 6, Fig. 3 or 5) having a cavity surface that includes at least one cavity (e.g. 2);
a resistive heating device (e.g. 32) provided at the at least one cavity, and
the transfer device being connected to the resistive heating device;
wherein the transfer device, is arranged to, in use, operate to cause heating of the resistive heating device, so as to heat the functional material (e.g. ink), that is provided in the at least one cavity and has, a composition that, when heated, generates a gas at an interface between the cavity surface in the at least one cavity and the functional material, to transfer the functional material from the at least one cavity, by the gas generated by heating the functional material, onto the receiving substrate (e.g. ¶¶ [0056], [0095], [0098]);
wherein the resistive device is provided as a plate parallel resistive layer (e.g. 22), wherein the at least one cavity is formed in a thermal insulator layer (material of 6) of the plate,
wherein the at least one cavity is provided with a thermal conductor (e.g. wire of 32) that is in thermal contact with the resistive device, and
wherein the thermal conductor extends along, and is restricted to, the cavity surface (e.g. of cavity 2, Figs. 5, 6).
Claims 2 and 20: Neuhaus discloses the transfer device of claim 1, further comprising a heat flux reflector part (e.g. 7) aimed at directing heat flux towards the at least one cavity (e.g. ¶ [0091]).
Claim 3: Neuhaus discloses the transfer device of claim 2, wherein the heat flux reflector part is locally adapted to the at least one cavity (e.g. on 6, see Fig. 3).
Claim 4: Neuhaus discloses the transfer device of claim 1, wherein the resistive heating device is connected through a busbar structure (e.g. 8) to the control circuitry (e.g. Fig. 3).
Claim 5: Neuhaus discloses the transfer device of claim 4, wherein the busbar structure is provided with a thermally insulating gap (e.g. 17) between a distal end thereof and the at least one cavity, thereby reducing thermal conductivity (e.g. cooling) to and from the at least one cavity to the busbar structure (e.g. ¶ [0091]).
Claim 6: Neuhaus discloses the transfer device of claim 1, wherein the resistive heating device is wired in a wiring pattern (e.g. shape of 32, Fig. 5) provided on the plate to address the resistive heating device individually per cavity of the at least one cavity, to selectively transfer the functional material from a selected cavity of the at least one cavity (e.g. ¶ [0098]).
Claim 8: Neuhaus discloses the transfer device according to claim 1, wherein the plate is provided flexibly on a face of a rotatable drum (e.g. 6, Fig. 3), with a plurality of cavities, wherein the plurality of cavities is provided in patterns at least partly along a circumference of the rotatable drum, so that, by rotation, a subsequent group of cavities of the plurality of cavities is brought in opposing position to the receiving substrate prior to transferring the functional material from the subsequent group of cavities onto the receiving substrate (e.g. ¶ [0091]).
Neuhaus does not appear to mention any control circuitry, and does not mention that the functional material has a viscosity higher than 50 Pa.s.
Neuhuas’213 discloses an equivalent transfer device that is improved upon at a later date by including control circuitry (e.g. 106, Fig. 1). The control circuitry is connected to a resistive heating device (e.g. 104) that is arranged to, in use, operate to cause heating of the resistive heating device, so as to heat functional material and transfer the functional material to a receiving substrate (e.g. 100, ¶¶ [0053], [0060], [0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neuhaus’ transfer device that was made in 2002 by at least adding control circuitry that is connected to the resistive heating device, as taught by Neuhaus’213 later in 2016, to improve upon the transfer device with more accurate control of heating using a gas in a cavity, to thereby achieve the very same purpose of transferring functional material to the receiving substrate.
In terms of the viscosity, any viscosity of the functional material, and conceivably the functional material itself, do not further limit the structure of the “transfer device”. The functional material is the material that is worked upon by the apparatus (transfer device). MPEP § 2115. However, if for some reason, it is believed that the viscosity does further limit the transfer device, then Kusaka and Arahara each disclose a transfer device with a functional material having such viscosity.
Arahara teaches that by using a functional material (e.g. ink) having a viscosity of 5 Pa.s or more (e.g. 5000 cps or more, col. 5, lines 56-65), this would provide the benefit of improving the transfer of the functional material from the transfer device and/or operability of the transfer device (e.g. col. 17, lines 20-25).
Kusaka teaches that using a functional material (e.g. ink) with a viscosity of 5 Pa.s to 20 Pa.s has a whole of benefits, e.g. improves durability of the transfer device that transfers the functional material, controlling a thickness of the functional material, applications in manufacturing a variety of electronic devices, etc. (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0151]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transfer device of Neuhaus by utilizing the functional material having the viscosity ranges taught by Arahara and Kusaka, for anyone, or all of the benefits mentioned by Arahara and Kusaka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed as part of the submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the prior art does not teach the functional material having a “viscosity higher than 50 Pa.s”. As previously stated, the viscosity of the functional material does not further limit the structure of the transfer device. However, it is clear that the functional material of Neuhaus is in viscous form and inherently has a viscosity, but just does not state what value that the viscosity is. This is addressed by the teachings of Kusaka and Arahara, which are analogous to Neuhaus, because all three references share art recognized equivalent transfer devices that transfer equivalent functional material (ink) onto a receiving substrate. Therefore, the transfer device of Neuhaus is certainly capable of transferring the functional material at the viscosity taught by Kusaka and Arahara for the reasons expressed in the above rejection. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the proper reasoning for one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Neuhaus comes from the teachings of Neuhaus’213, Kusaka and Arahara themselves.
Applicant secondly asserts that that the prior art does not teach:
wherein the transfer device, is arranged to, in use, operate to cause heating of the resistive heating device, so as to heat the functional material (e.g. ink), that is provided in the at least one cavity and has, a composition that, when heated, generates a gas at an interface between the cavity surface in the at least one cavity and the functional material, to transfer the functional material from the at least one cavity, by the gas generated by heating the functional material, onto the receiving substrate (lines 7-12 of Claim 1);
These limitations are met by Neuhaus. Applicant is pointed to Figures 5 to 9 of Neuhaus and to compare the above limitations to at least ¶ [0098]) of Neuhaus’ disclosure which states:
A printing cycle is composed of heating the gas quantity (note FIG. 5) in selected cavities, in this case by a resistance heater 32, subsequently covering the openings with printing ink (note FIG. 6), thereafter cooling the heated gas quantity (note FIG. 7), then removing excess printing ink (note FIG. 8) and, finally, transferring printing ink from openings in the printing form to the printing material (note FIG. 9). The transfer/application can in this case be assisted by heating gas quantities in cavities.
In essence and/or to paraphrase the language of the claim, Neuhaus teaches:
wherein the transfer device, is arranged to, in use, operate to cause heating of the resistive heating device (32, Fig. 5), so as to heat the functional material (e.g. 15), that is provided in the at least one cavity (2, Fig. 8) and has, a composition that, when heated, generates a gas at an interface between the cavity surface in the at least one cavity and the functional material (Figs. 6 to 8), to transfer the functional material from the at least one cavity, by the gas generated by heating the functional material, onto the receiving substrate (e.g. 19, Fig. 9).
Although the claim recites “when heated, generates a gas at an interface between the cavity surface in the at least one cavity and the functional material”, this phrase does not exclude when the gas (air) is inside the cavity and when it is cooled down. Mainly, that the gas is generated to transfer the functional material from the cavity to the receiving substrate.
Applicant’s third argument is that Neuhaus does not teach a “thermal conductor that is in thermal contact with the resistive heater device”. The examiner disagrees as the schematic representation of Figures 5 to 9 of Neuhaus does not exclude any electrical connection that is shown to the resistive heater device (32). In this case, it is clear that outside of the structure of the printer form (6), there is an electrical connection that provides electrical power/current to the resistive heater device (32). This connection (not labeled, outside of form 6) is what meets the limitations of a “thermal conductor”.
For the forgoing reasons, the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with the above cited references. The applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent Claims 2 through 6, 8 and 20, stand and fall together with Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 through 11, 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment filed as part of the submission has 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 A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Non-Final action, mailed on January 7, 2026.
Prosecution Insights