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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 19-34) in the reply filed on 12/18/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 35-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/18/25.
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 20-26, 28-34 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the central hole of the liquid-carrying shaft " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN111029289A).
Regarding claim 19, Wang et al. teaches a liquid-carrying roller for wet etching (see abstract), characterized in that the roller 4 comprises a first end shaft (see reduced diameter end portion on a first distal end of the roller 4), a second end shaft (see reduced diameter end portion on distal end opposing the first distal end of the roller 4), and a liquid-carrying shaft 4, the first end shaft and the second end shaft being located at both ends of the liquid-carrying shaft 4 respectively (see figure 3, page 3 of the translation); the first end shaft, the second end shaft and the liquid-carrying shaft 4 being arranged concentrically (see figure 3), and the diameters of the first end shaft and the second end shaft being both adjustable (both end shafts are capable of expanding and/or contracting as a result of temperature changes, which reads on an adjustable diameter).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamprecht (WO2009129989A1).
Regarding claim 19, Lamprecht teaches a liquid-carrying roller for wet etching (see abstract and page 3 of the translation), characterized in that the roller 20, 22 comprises a first end shaft (see reduced diameter end portion on a first distal end of the roller 20, 22, a second end shaft (see reduced diameter end portion on distal end opposing the first distal end of the roller 20, 22), and a liquid-carrying shaft 22, the first end shaft and the second end shaft being located at both ends of the liquid-carrying shaft 22 respectively (see figures 1-2, page 5 of the translation); the first end shaft, the second end shaft and the liquid-carrying shaft 22 being arranged concentrically (see figures 1-3), and the diameters of the first end shaft and the second end shaft being both adjustable (both end shafts are capable of expanding and/or contracting as a result of temperature changes, which reads on an adjustable diameter).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111029289A) as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Edgerly et al. (US20160254173).
Regarding claim 27, Wang et al. teaches the limitations of claim 19. Wang et al. does not teach that the material of the first end shaft, second end shaft and liquid carrying shaft is PVDF or PTFE. Edgerly et al. teaches a substrate etching system (see abstract, paragraph [0019]) and that PVDF or PTFE are appropriate materials for use with the substrate processing system depending on the particular chemical and thermal requirements of the application (see paragraph [0064]). Since both Wang et al. and Edgerly et al. teach substrate etching systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that PVDF or PTFE may be used for the first end shaft, second end shaft and liquid carrying shaft so as to provide an appropriate material depending on the chemical and thermal needs of the application, as shown to be known and conventional by Edgerly et al. Furthermore, it has been determined that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-26, 28-34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Wang et al. (CN111029289A). Wang et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 20. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711