DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/140518 filed April 27, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (US 2017/0008755).
Regarding claim 1: Ishida et al. discloses a liquid dispensing apparatus (100) having a workpiece platform (102) which supports a workpiece (103), a nozzle (104) which is an introduction mechanism, where the nozzle (104) is mounted to a support frame (124) such that the workpiece platform (102) and support frame (124) can together be considered a single platform (pars. 91-92, 103, figures 4-5) which cooperate with a vacuum chamber (202) which is a housing that creates a confined space within which the nozzle (104) introduces liquid into the workpiece (103) while air is discharged by a vacuum suction source (203) (par. 131-133, figure 8). Ishida et al. also says that the nozzle (104) can be attached to an attachment plate (205) which forms the bottom surface of the vacuum chamber (202) which would also be a platform supporting the workpiece (103) such that they are the same platform (par. 132-133, figures 4 and 8). Ishida et al. teaches that the vacuum chamber example is suitable for use with the second embodiment, which refers to the embodiment shown in figure 4 (par. 131).
Regarding claim 2: Ishida et al. discloses a triaxial mechanism (105) which is a transfer mechanism which can move the workpiece (103) in a predetermined movement direction (par. 91, 111, figure 4).
Regarding claim 3: Ishida et al. discloses the above nozzle (104) and further discloses that an observation optical unit (122) which has a CCD camera which is an image acquisition device provided above and electronically connected to the tri-axial mechanism (105), the optical unit (122) observing the tip-end opening (104a) of the nozzle (104) and creating images of the tip (104a) (pars. 98-99, figures 4-5). The limitation “to align the introduction nozzle with the product for introducing the liquid into the product” is considered to be a statement with regard to the intended use of the apparatus and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the optical unit (122) is capable of being used to align the nozzle (104) with the workpiece (103).
Regarding claim 6: Ishida et al. discloses a micromotion unit (120) on the nozzle (104) which is a nozzle driving mechanism that moves the nozzle (104) to the workpiece (103) (par. 97, figure 4) and controls movement via a control unit (114) based on the images obtained by the observation optical unit (122) (par. 99).
Regarding claim 15: Ishida et al. discloses a liquid dispensing apparatus (100) having a workpiece platform (102) which supports a workpiece (103), a nozzle (104) which is an adhesive dispensing mechanism (par. 141) where the nozzle (104) is mounted to a support frame (124) such that the workpiece platform (102) and support frame (124) can together be considered a single platform (pars. 91-92, 103, figures 4-5) which cooperate with a vacuum chamber (202) which is a housing that creates a confined space within which the nozzle (104) introduces liquid into the workpiece (103) while air is discharged by a vacuum suction source (203) (par. 131-133, figure 8). Ishida et al. also says that the nozzle (104) can be attached to an attachment plate (205) which forms the bottom surface of the vacuum chamber (202) which would also be a platform supporting the workpiece (103) such that they are the same platform (par. 132-133, figures 4 and 8). Ishida et al. teaches that the vacuum chamber example is suitable for use with the second embodiment, which refers to the embodiment shown in figure 4 (par. 131).
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 10: Ishida et al. discloses a fluid supply source (204) which supplies a fluid from outside of the vacuum chamber (202) through a channel to the syringe (107) of the nozzle (104) which can be considered part of the introduction mechanism (par. 132, figure 8). Ishida et al. discloses that this is a fluid supply source and therefore fails to explicitly disclose that it is configured to supply liquid, however, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a liquid because simply trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e. liquid, gas, powder) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Wilenski et al. (US 2018/0126671).
Regarding claim 4: Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose more than one camera for the observation optical unit (122). However, Wilenski et al. discloses a similar vacuum chamber nozzle deposition system which uses a number of cameras (44) viewing the nozzle (54) from different directions to monitor the process (par. 31, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one camera as taught by Wilenski et al. for the apparatus of Ishida et al. because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Freiderikos et al. (US 2020/0188307).
Regarding claim 5: Ishida et al. discloses the above apparatus having the triaxial mechanism (105) which can be considered to comprise a guiding rail which allows the workpiece platform (102) to move (figure 4), however Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose using more than one nozzle (104) in the apparatus at once. However, Freiderikos et al. discloses a similar vacuum chamber dispensing apparatus where one or more print heads (5) are provided within the chamber (par. 218, figures 2-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple nozzles within the chamber of Ishida et al. as taught by Freiderikos et al. because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04), and arrange them to be on opposite sides of the triaxial mechanism (105) because simple rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04) and trying from a finite number of solutions are not considered to be patentable advances (i.e. same side vs opposite side) (MPEP 2143E).
Claims 7-9, 14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Eddy (US 4,259,372).
Regarding claim 7: Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose a collecting mechanism on the platform configured to collect excess or hardened liquid. However, Eddy discloses a similar viscous fluid dispenser which uses a means (125) to clean the nozzle (81) including a trough (142) which collects any removed or hardened sealant which can then be easily removed or drained (col. 10 lines 47+, col. 11 lines 1-34, figure 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a trough as taught by Eddy for the apparatus of Ishida et al. because Eddy teaches that this facilitates easy removal of excess unwanted sealant (col. 1 lines 56+, col. 11 lines 1-34)
Regarding claims 8-9 and 16-17: Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose a wiping mechanism for wiping and removing liquid on the outside of the nozzle, having gears and wiping members. However, Eddy discloses a similar viscous fluid dispenser which uses a wiping means (125) to remove excess sealant off of the outside surface of the nozzle (81), the means (125) including a pair of sprockets (135, 136) which are gears, the sprockets (135, 136) being engaged with one another while a motor (134) which is a wiping driver is connected to the lower sprocket (136) and the upper sprocket (135) is connected to a wiping hub (139) which includes a number of resilient wiper blades (140) that physically wipe the nozzle (81) to remove excess sealant thereon (col. 10 lines 47+, col. 11 lines 1-34, figures 6-8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wiping means like that of Eddy for the apparatus of Ishida et al. because Eddy teaches that viscous material dispensers like these can sometimes retain some liquid on the outside and cause poor dispensing behavior and wiping the nozzle can remedy this (col. 1 lines 56+). While Eddy does not explicitly disclose a second wiping member on the second sprocket (136) it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two wiping hubs (i.e., for two nozzles) because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 14 and 20: Ishida et al. and Eddy disclose the above combination in which the wiping hubs (139) each include a number of wiper blades (140) which are protrusions made of a resilient material such as rubber, which is elastic (col. 10 lines 47+, col. 11 lines 1-34, figures 6-8).
Claims 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 15 above and further in view of Liu (CN 207971039, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claims 11 and 18: Ishida et al. discloses the vacuum chamber (202) and while there must inherently be an opening to insert or remove the workpiece (103), Ishida et al. does not explicitly discuss such a feature. However, Liu discloses a similar vacuum glue dispensing apparatus provided with a vacuum door (7) which covers or exposes an opening to the vacuum chamber (2), the door (7) having pulleys (6) which are wheels arranged on a rail (4) having a groove such that the door (7) is moved along the rail (4) to open or close the opening of the chamber (2), further having a sealing rubber (8) around the peripheral edge of the opening of the chamber (2) as well as a few curved end caps (9, 20) meant to help seal the door (7) against the opening of the vacuum chamber (page 3, figures 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a door system like that of Liu for the vacuum chamber of Ishida et al. because Liu shows that it is a known door arrangement for this type of system and a simple one to implement (page 2 top, page 3, figures 1-3) and use of a known element to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Ishida et al. and Liu fail to explicitly disclose that the door includes a driver for moving it, or that there are two door rails (4) rather than just the one. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a driver to move the door because simple automation of an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two door rails rather than just one, and arrange them on opposite sides of the opening just like each pair of end caps (9, 20) (Liu figured 1-3) because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 12 and 19: Ishida et al. and Liu disclose the above combination in which the vacuum chamber has a sealing rubber (8) arranged along the periphery of the opening, implicitly surrounding the opening (Liu page 3, figure 2). Liu also discloses end caps (9, 20) as part of the door system, some of which (20) are curved inwardly towards the vacuum chamber (2) in order to better ensure tightness of the seal between the door (7) and the chamber (2) (page 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use inward curves on the rails as well as the end caps (20) in order to better seal the door (7) against the vacuum chamber (2) because Liu teaches that this helps ensure a better seal (page 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Mears et al. (US 4,997,606).
Regarding claim 13: Ishida et al. discloses a vacuum suction source (203) which connects via a line through a port in the vacuum chamber (202) in order to control the vacuum level of the chamber (202) (pars. 132-134, figure 8), requiring at least one valve to do so, but Ishida et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second valve anywhere along the line. However, Mears et al. discloses a similar vacuum container (76) treatment apparatus in which both a pressure source (94) and vacuum pump (98) are provided each having their own conduits (90) and individual valves (92, 96) for either regulating the vacuum (96) or breaking the vacuum (92) in order to pressurize the container (76) with air from the external atmosphere, such that both valves can be considered on the housing and connected to a single port (col. 9 lines 35+, col. 10 lines 1-11 figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second valve for pressurizing the container as taught by Mears et al. for the apparatus of Ishida et al. because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because Mears et al. shows that this is a functionally equivalent mechanism for depressurizing and pressurizing a vacuum chamber (see figures 1 and 5) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
12/23/2025
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717