DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (2021/0126158) in view of Terada et al. (7,233,387) and Edwards (2016/0297224).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches an inkjet printing apparatus comprising:
a stage (fig. 6, item 230) movable in the first direction (fig. 6);
an inkjet device (fig. 6, item 261) configured to spray ink onto a substrate disposed on the stage (see fig. 11), the ink including a solvent and a plurality of bipolar elements dispersed in the solvent ([0112], note that the light emitting elements are bipolar elements),
a plurality of electric field generating devices configured to generate an electric field on the substrate, each electric field generating device including a support and a probe pad mechanically coupled to the support, the probe movable relative to the support (fig. 6, see generating devices 241, 242, see fig. 8, note probe PP1, support MT2, and note relative movement of probe pad and support).
Kang does not teach a first and second rail system. Terada teaches
a plurality of first rails (Terada, fig. 1, items 32, 34) extending in a first direction (Terada, fig. 1, X direction);
a plurality of second rails (Terada, fig. 1, items 56, 58) extending in the first direction (Terada, fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the rail system disclosed by Terada to the device disclose by Kang because doing so would allow for independent movement of the stage, the inkjet device, and the electric field generating devices, thereby allowing for optimization of substrate processing.
Upon combination of Kang with Terada, the resultant device would have electric field generating devices moveable in the first direction connected to respective second rails while the stage would be connected to the first rails and also movable in the first direction.
Kang in view of Terada does not teach a light irradiation device configured to irradiate the substrate disposed on the stage with light or a drying device configured to dry the ink jetted onto the substrate disposed on the stage. Edwards teaches this (Edwards, see fig. 2, Note printhead 202, light irradiation unit 204 and drying unit 206 in a line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the irradiation and drying devices disclosed by Edwards to the device of Kang in view of Terada because doing so would allow for the proper setting and drying of ink, thereby preventing undesired ink migration or bleeding after deposition.
Upon combination of all references, all claimed components would be arranged
sequentially in a line along the first direction and movable along the first or second rails.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electric field generating devices generates the electric field on the substrate disposed on the stage while the stage is moving in the first direction (Terada, Note that any electric field treatment of the substrate would occur while the stage moved along the first direction from one end of the printer to the other).
Note that, according to MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art. Here, all claimed structural components are disclosed in the prior are, and a manner of operating those components has been claimed, but this manner of operating the components does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the plurality of electric field generating devices include:
a first electric field generating device disposed on a side of the stage, and
a second electric field generating device disposed on another side of the stage, and
the first electric field generating device and the second electric field generating device are spaced apart from each other and are movable in the first direction independently from each other (Kang, see figs. 6, 8).
Regarding claim 4, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 3, wherein at least one of the first electric field generating device and the second electric field generating device is configured to move in a direction opposite to the first direction in case that the stage moves to the drying device (Note that, upon combination of the prior art elements, the resultant device would meet the limitation. That is, because each of the electrodes and the stage are all independently moveable, any one can move in any of the forward and backward first directions at any time).
Note that, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Here, the claim recites that one claimed component moves in a direction while another moves in a different direction. This language is purely function, reciting only what the device does and has no bearing on the structure of the device itself.
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inkjet device is configured to spray the ink onto the substrate disposed on the stage on which the electric field is generated by the plurality of electric field generating devices (Note that, upon combination, the prior art device meets the limitation. Also, it should be noted that the claim is broad enough to mean that the substrate undergoes ink deposition and electric field generation at any two times, not necessarily concurrent).
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 5, wherein
end portions of the bipolar elements are oriented to have initial orientation directions by the electric field (Kang, [0112]).
Regarding claim 7, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the light irradiation device is configured to irradiate the ink that is jetted onto the substrate disposed the stage and the electric field with the light (Note that, upon combination, the prior art device meets the limitation. Also, it should be noted that the claim is broad enough to mean that the substrate undergoes ink irradiation and electric field generation at any two times, not necessarily concurrent).
Note that, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Here, the claim recites that ink is to be irradiated with light during or after an electric field is applied to the ink. This language is purely function, reciting only what the device does and has no bearing on the structure of the device itself.
Regarding claim 8, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 7, wherein in case that the ink is irradiated with the light, the electric field changes an orientation direction of some of the bipolar elements (Kang, [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising
a plurality of frames including a first frame and a second frame disposed above the first rail and the second rail and spaced apart
and
the stage and the plurality of electric field generating devices are configured to pass below the plurality of frames moving in the first direction (Terada, fig. 2, Note first rails 32,34, second rails 46, 48, stage 20A on first rails, movable components 42, 44 on second rails and first and second frames 16, 18, spaces apart and above the rails). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the in-depth stage movement and printing arrangement disclosed by Terada to the device disclosed by Kowalczewski in view of Edwards because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. That is, Kowalczewski in view of Edwards discloses a sequence of processing steps for producing a printed article, but it does not go into detail about the inner workings of the movement of the components of a printing system needed to execute such a printed product. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Terada for such a teaching.
Upon combination of the references, the electrodes disclosed by Kowalczewski in view of Edwards would be movable in the same manner as traveling bodies 42 and 44 of Terada, allowing the electrodes to be independently movable in both of the first directions with respect to the stage and substrate.
(Examiner is aware that Terada is directed to a non-inkjet-type printer while Kowalczewski and Edwards are directed to inkjet printers. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains that the rail movement system disclosed by Terada would have been equally applicable in any type of printer).
Regarding claim 13, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 9, wherein
the drying device includes a first drying device to which the plurality of electric field generating devices and the stage move (note that, upon combination, the electric field generating devices and stage can all move anywhere along the first direction), and
the stage moves to the first drying device in a state in which the electric field is generated (Note that the stage can move while the electric field generating device is energized).
Note that, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. This language is purely function, reciting only what the device does and has no bearing on the structure of the device itself.
Regarding claims 22, 23, note that Kang meets the limitations, and Kang’s electric field generators on Terada’s second rails would meet all of the movement limitations.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Terada and Edwards as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Miyabayashi (8,602,548).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Kang in view of Terada and Edwards teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the inkjet device is disposed on the first frame (Edwards, see fig. 3). Kang in view of Terada and Edwards does not teach wherein the light irradiation device includes;
a first light irradiation device and a second light irradiation device.
Miyabayashi teaches this (Miyabayashi, figs. 4, 5, Note first irradiation device 21 attached to printhead 210 and second irradiation device 22 downstream of first irradiation device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use two irradiation devices, as disclosed by Miyabayashi, in the device disclosed by Kang in view of Terada and Edwards because doing so would allow for quick partial curing after ink deposition and then a more thorough full curing by the second irradiation device.
Upon combination of the prior art, the resultant device would have the first light irradiation device disposed on the first frame and the second light irradiation device disposed on the second frame spaced apart from the first frame in the first direction.
Regarding claim 24, Kang in view of Terada, Edwards and Miyabayashi teaches two irradiation devices. With respect to the area language, this could mean any number of things. Here, the second irradiation device could irradiate a first substrate corresponding to the claimed substrate and then could irradiate a second substrate, which would mean that the area irradiated would be greater than that of the first substrate, i.e., “the substrate”.
Regarding claim 11, Terada in view of Edwards, Kang and Miyabayashi teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 10,
wherein the ink is sprayed in case that the stage moves to the first light irradiation device (note that, upon combination, the limitation would be met), and
the first light irradiation device is configured to irradiate the stage with the light in case that the ink is sprayed onto the stage (Note that, upon combination, the limitation would be met).
Regarding claim 12, Terada in view of Edwards, Kang and Miyabayashi teaches the inkjet printing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second light irradiation device is configured to irradiate the stage with the light after the ink is sprayed onto the stage (Note that, upon combination, the limitation would be met).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853