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Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species B-C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/30/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto et al. (US-20170069842-A1 as provided in the IDS dated 06/24/2025) in view of Dupont et al. (US-20100297213-A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
An electrostatic film formation device comprising (“A thin film fabricating apparatus includes an electrode part which sprays a thin film material as electrified spray particles,” see Abstract):
a powder feeder that feeds powder (“an electrode part 10 spraying a thin film material 2 as electrified spray particles,” see [0058]);
a substrate on which a powder film is to be formed from the powder (the thin film is disposed on the substrate 8, see [0058]);
Hamamoto teaches suitably applying a voltage to both the substrate 8 and the needle electrodes 11 of the electrode part 10, see [0060], [0064], and [0072]. Hamamoto further teaches that voltage applied can suitably be a DC voltage, see [0086]. However, Hamamoto is silent towards the use of a DC power supply and does not teach:
a DC power supply that applies voltage to the powder feeder and the substrate
To solve the same problem applying a DC voltage to a nozzle and support (see [0081]), Dupont teaches using a high DC voltage power supply to provide the electric field to the nozzle and support, see [0081]. This disclosure indicates the use of a DC voltage powers supply to apply a DC voltage is successful and conventional.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in suppling the DC voltage of Hamamoto with a DC voltage power supply as taught by Dupont.
to draw the powder from the powder feeder to the substrate with electrostatic force “the substrate voltage may be applied with a very weak potential having the opposite polarity to the electrification of spray particles to more actively attach the spray particles 4 onto the substrate,” see [0072];
and a masking member that is disposed between the powder feeder and the substrate and has a passing port allowing powder to pass from the powder feeder to the substrate (The spray particles 4 pass through the patterned groove of the mask 30 from the electrode part 10 and are attached to the substrate 8 by electrostatic attractive force, so as to provide the thin film 6, see [0073].),
wherein the masking member is disposed in a state where the masking member is not in contact with the powder film to be formed (Fig. 4 shows a state in which the mask 30 is not in contact with the thin film 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamamoto discloses:
further comprising; a spacer that is disposed between the masking member and the substrate (the spacers 40 are shown to the between the mask 30 and the substrate 8 in Fig. 4),
wherein the spacer is disposed outside the powder film to be formed on the substrate (Fig. 4 shows the spacers 40 are shown to be outside the thin film 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Hamamoto discloses:
wherein the spacer is an insulator (“The spacer 40 includes an insulating material to insulate the mask 30 and the substrate 8,” see [0078]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto et al. (US-20170069842-A1 as provided in the IDS dated 06/24/2025) in view of Dupont et al. (US-20100297213-A1) and in further view of Kinuta (US-20190381522-A1) with evidence from Tamura et al. (US-20200215679-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamamoto with the following modification in view of Kinuta and with evidence from Tamura.
the spacer (spacers 40)… and is in close contact with the masking member (the mask 30) and the substrate (the substrate 8, Fig. 4 shows the ).
Hamamoto is silent toward the material used for the spacers 40 and does not teach:
wherein the spacer has elasticity
To solve the same problem of providing insulating spacers for film forming device (see [0045] and [0048]), Kinuta teaches the insulation spacers can suitably be made of silicone resin because this material as the advantageous features of excellent heat resistance, insulating properties, and ease of processing, see Kinuta-[0048]. As evidenced by Tamura, silicon resin is an elastic material, see Tamura-[0098].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used silicon resin (an elastic material as evidence by Tamura) for the material of Hamamoto’s spacers to provide the advantageous features of excellent heat resistance, insulating properties, and ease of processing as taught by Kinuta.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights