DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an active energy irradiation unit having an emitting surface configured to emit an active energy ray” in claim 1.
Corresponding structure disclosed to be “substrate 31 having a rectangular plate shape and constituting a predetermined circuit, and LED elements 32 that are light-emitting elements arranged at predetermined pitches in the X direction and the Y direction on the substrate 31” (see paragraph [0025] of the originally filed specification)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takubo (WO2020022424, note US pgPub 2021/0323322 is the national stage filing of the Takbu PCT application. US 2021/0323322 is used as the translation for the purposes of the following citations).
Regarding claim 1, Takubo teaches an active energy irradiation device (fig. 1a) comprising:
an active energy irradiation unit (4 better seen in figure 2a to include substrate with LEDs) having an emitting surface configured to emit an active energy ray (via LEDs from surface 5, paragraph [0020] teaches UV); and
an inert gas supply unit (3) having a spray port (23) configured to spray an inert gas ([0061]), wherein the inert gas supply unit (3) includes a housing (24/24a/24b forming flow path 21 below 27 (see figure 3c)) provided with the spray port (23),
a connection portion (22) provided to the housing (best seen in figure 3c), and a throttle portion (25 or 27 is interpreted as a throttle portion because it is a porous member, the instant disclosure teaches the throttle portion includes a porous filter, therefore since 25 or 27 is a porous member (i.e. inherently filters) it is interpreted as the throttle) provided to the connection portion (as seen in figure 3c, 25 or 27 are provided to 22 by the housing 24), and a pipe for supplying the inert gas into the housing is connectable to the connection portion ([0034] teaches a gas is supplied through the supply port 22, thus requiring some pipe to supply the gas to 22).
Regarding claim 2, Takubo teaches wherein the emitting surface extends in both a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in figure 2, substrate 5 is square thus extending in two directions), and is configured to emit the active energy ray to one side in a third direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction (as seen in figure 1, 4 emits light perpendicular to the plane of the substrate 5), and the spray port is located on one side in the second direction with respect to the emitting surface (fig. 2, 23 located on one side in the planar substrate 5), and is configured to spray the inert gas to the one side in the third direction (gas is emitted via 23 in the same direction as the light as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Takubo teaches wherein the spray port has an elongated shape with the first direction as a longitudinal direction (define first direction as the direction of 23b in figure 1B, see paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Takubo teaches wherein the throttle portion includes a porous filter (fig. 3c, 27 is porous see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Takubo teaches wherein the throttle portion is provided to the connection portion so as to be located inside the housing (27 inside housing as seen in figure 3c).
Regarding claim 7, Takubo teaches wherein the throttle portion is provided to the connection portion so as to be located outside the housing (by removing either 25 or 27 out of housing 24 and placing it on 22. Note there is no structural requirement, since the porous members may be provided in the housing they may be removed and provided on the connection portion 22).
Regarding claim 8, Takubo teaches wherein the throttle portion has a resistance causing a pressure of the inert gas within the pipe to be 0.1 MPa or higher, the pipe connected to the connection portion (0.1 MPa is atmospheric pressure, since the system is not under vacuum and the supply 22 provides an inert gas flow that is under resistance due to porous member 27 under atmospheric pressure, the pipe will be under a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure due to the resistance provided by the porous member 27).
Regarding claim 9, Takubo teaches wherein the throttle portion is detachably attached to the connection portion (since 27 may be positioned in 24, it may be removed therefrom thus detachable attached to the connection portion 22 via housing 24).
Regarding 10, Takubo teaches wherein the active energy irradiation unit emits an ultraviolet ray or an electron beam as the active energy ray (UV see paragraph [0020]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takubo in view of Taguchi et al. (US pgPub 2019/0054745).
Regarding claim 5, Takubo teaches wherein the porous filter is made of various materials ([0048]), however fails to disclose wherein the porous filter is made of a metal sintered body.
However, Taguchi teaches wherein the porous filter is made of a metal sintered body ([0056]).
Taguchi modifies Takubo by suggesting an alternative material as the porous member.
Since both inventions are directed towards curing devices with a gas supply and a porous member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the porous material of Taguchi for that of Takubo because it would have predictably been suitable for the intended use of Takubo as evident of each reference disclosing similar materials and Taguchi teaching that sintered metal material would also be suitable (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takubo in view of Numana (JP2011235210) (submitted with IDS of 07 July 2023).
Regarding claim 11, Takubo teaches an active energy irradiation system comprising: a plurality of active energy irradiation devices each of which is the active energy irradiation device according claim 1 ([0040], wherein a plurality of light irradiating devices 1 suggests a plurality of light irradiating sections 2 and gas supply sections 3 because 1 includes 2 and 3 as evident from paragraph [0016]).
Takubo fails to disclose how the gas would be coupled to a plurality of light irradiating devices. Therefore Takubo fails to disclose a first pipe for supplying the inert gas into the housing of each of the plurality of active energy irradiation devices; and a plurality of second pipes branching off from the first pipe, and connected to the connection portion of each of the plurality of active energy irradiation devices, wherein the plurality of active energy irradiation devices are arranged in at least one row.
However, Numana teaches a first pipe for supplying the inert gas into the housing of each of the plurality of active energy irradiation devices; and a plurality of second pipes branching off from the first pipe (see annotated figure 2a below),
PNG
media_image1.png
413
1145
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and connected to the connection portion of each of the plurality of active energy irradiation devices, wherein the plurality of active energy irradiation devices are arranged in at least one row (necessarily connected to 20 in order to supply gas as indicated by vertical arrows from each portion of 20, row seen in annotated figure 2a above).
Numana modifies Takubo by suggesting how a gas supply could be connected to multiple active energy units.
Since both inventions are directed towards providing gas to a UV device having multiple UV and gas discharge units, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the supply arrangement suggested in Numana when supplying gas to multiple units as taught be Takubo because it would resolve the problem as to how gas would be supplied to each of the gas supply sections 22 in Takubo, thus allowing gas to be supplied to multiple devices so as to increase the throughput of the curing device of Takubo.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,679,112 in view of Takubo or Takubo in view of Taguchi or Numana.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,667 in view of Takubo or Takubo in view of Taguchi or Numana.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,298,959 in view of Takubo or Takubo in view of Taguchi or Numana.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,687 in view of Takubo or Takubo in view of Taguchi or Numana.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,508,827 in view of Takubo or Takubo in view of Taguchi or Numana.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,987 in view of Takubo or Takubo in view of Taguchi or Numana.
Each of the above patents teach an active energy irradiation device, however differ in various respects by not disclosing certain limitations of claims 1-11.
However, Takubo teaches all the remaining limitations alone or in combination with Taguchi or Numana as discussed above.
Takubo modifies each patent by suggesting the missing limitations.
Since both inventions are directed towards active energy irradiation devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each patent’s deficiency with those disclosed by Takubo above because an uneven distribution of gas released towards the print medium is improved, thus improving the reliability of a curing reaction (see abstract of Takubo). Each of the missing limitations of claims 5 and 11 would have been obvious as discussed herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights