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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/15/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the apparatus, claims 12-22, in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the phrase a “digital light source processing part that adjusts shape an amount of light” should read “a digital light source processing part that adjusts shape and amount of light”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “a second lens that transmits the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light area adjusted by the digital light source processing element” should read “a second lens that transmits the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light area adjusted by the digital light source processing part” since the functionality of adjusting the shape and amount of light is attributed to the digital light source processing part earlier in claim 12 “a digital light source processing part that adjusts shape an amount of light of the first ultraviolet rays”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-15, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda (JP 2022093112 A) in view of Thompson (US 20130106966 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hosoda teaches an apparatus comprising a transfer stage that transfers a target substrate (Fig. 12 element 420 and paragraph [0131]); a printing part that selectively applies a material (paragraph [0148]), a first light source that emits first ultraviolet rays (Fig. 12 element 410A and paragraph [0134]) and a second light source that irradiates the preliminary resin layer with second ultraviolet rays having a different amount of light from the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light are adjusted (Fig. 12 element 410B and paragraph [0134]). The examiner notes that the limitation that the printing part applies an ultraviolet ray curable material that reacts to ultraviolet rays is, according to MPEP 2115, intend use and does not have any patentable weight.
Hosoda fails to teach a digital light source processing part that adjusts shape an amount of light of the first ultraviolet rays and selectively cures a preliminary resin layer by irradiating at least a portion of an entire area of the preliminary resin layer formed of the ultraviolet ray curable material with the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light are adjusted.
Thompson teaches a UV printer with a digital light source processing part that adjusts shape an amount of light of the first ultraviolet rays and selectively cures a preliminary resin layer by irradiating at least a portion of an entire area of the preliminary resin layer formed of the ultraviolet ray curable material with the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light are adjusted (Fig. 3 element S312 and paragraphs [0011] and [0030]-[0032], wherein the digital light source processing part is the controller and its connections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Hosoda with the digital light source processing part of Thompson as a combination of 2 elements known in the prior art to yield a device that will “apply appropriate levels of power for appropriate portions of an image to be cured” (Thompson paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Hosoda and Thompson teach all the elements of claim 12 as stated above but Hosoda fails to teach the printing part includes at least one of an inkjet printing apparatus, a dispenser apparatus and a screen-printing apparatus. However, Hosoda does teach the use of a spinner to apply the UV curable material (paragraph [0148]).
Thompson teaches it is known in the art to use inkjet systems for dispensing UV curable materials [0004].
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to replace the spinner taught by Hosoda with the inkjet system taught by Thompson as a simple substitution of one printing system for another known in the art to yield an apparatus still capable of printing UV curable material.
Regarding claim 14, Hosoda and Thompson teach all the elements of claim 12 as stated above and the examiner notes that the limitations that the ultraviolet ray curable material includes an optical clear resin is, according to MPEP 2115, intended use and holds no patentable weight. Since Hosoda and Thompson teach all the structure as recited they are capable of printing clear resin and read on the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Hosoda and Thompson teach all the elements of claim 12 as stated above and but Hosoda fails to teach wherein the digital light source processing part includes: a mirror that reflects the first ultraviolet rays emitted from the first light source; a first lens that transmits the first ultraviolet rays reflected by the mirror; a digital light source processing element that selectively reflects the first ultraviolet rays transmitted by the first lens; and a second lens that transmits the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light area adjusted by the digital light source processing part.
Thompson teaches wherein the digital light source processing part includes: a mirror (See element 1 of the labeled version of Fig. 1 below) that reflects the first ultraviolet rays emitted from the first light source (Fig. 1 element 105 and paragraph [0025]); a first lens that transmits the first ultraviolet rays reflected by the mirror (Fig. 1 element 107); a digital light source processing element that selectively reflects the first ultraviolet rays transmitted by the first lens (Fig. 1 element 115 and paragraph [0026]); and a second lens that transmits the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light area adjusted by the digital light source processing part (Fig. 1 element 120 and paragraph [0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the lenses of Thompson with the apparatus of Hosoda as a combination of 2 elements known in the prior art to yield an apparatus able to “The image or portions thereof may be scanned to deliver enough power and energy to cure or partially cure the ink of the image.” (Thompson paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Hosoda and Thompson teach all the elements of claim 12 as stated above and Hosoda teaches wherein the amount of light of the second ultraviolet rays is greater than the amount of light of the first ultraviolet rays whose shape and amount of light are adjusted (paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 22, Hosoda and Thompson teach all the elements of claim 12 as stated above and the examiner notes that the limitation that the target substrate is a substrate for a display device is, according to MPEP 2115, intended use and holds no patentable weight. Since Hosoda and Thompson teach all the structural elements as recited they are capable of printing on a display device and read on the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as claimed alone or in combination with particularly including; wherein the first lens is an illumination lens and the second lens is a projection lens. Specifically, while Thompson does teach 2 lenses, these are of a different type to the claimed lenses and the prior art of record does not appear to teach the claimed optical setup.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an apparatus for forming a resin layer with all the claimed structure alone or in combination with and particularly including; an operation part that generates data of a digital ultraviolet ray image of the first ultraviolet rays and provides the data to the digital light source processing part, and generates first data of an irradiation time of the first ultraviolet rays and second data of the amount of light of the first ultraviolet rays; and a light source controller that converts the trigger signal, the first data, and the second data into current impulses and provides the current impulses to the first light source.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoyama (US 20150124017 A1) and Min et al. (US 20120154769 A1) are cited as having a similar structure to the claimed apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights