DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-8 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “also having” may be more appropriately written as “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-4, 7-8, 11-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quednau et al. (DE 102017104905).
Regarding claim 1, Quednau discloses an arrangement for providing a plurality of nanowires galvanically on a substrate (26) [0001], [0006] (= apparatus for galvanically growing a plurality of nanowires on a substrate), comprising:
A substrate module (28) [0155] (= a substrate holder);
A housing (27) [0155] (= and a housing);
An interior of the housing (= in which a chamber);
A control unit (34) (= a control unit), and
Electrolyte (6) supplied to the housing from tube (16) (= and a storage tank for an electrolyte are arranged). It is noted that the instant claim states a housing in which…a storage tank…are arranged”. The phrase does not require a specific structural arrangement. Moreover, the tube, sponge, etc. of Quednau read on the claimed storage tank since the electrolyte is stored within these elements. Alternatively, the container (35) reads on the claimed storage tank as it stores the electrolyte [0158].
The phrase “the apparatus being designed to grow the plurality of nanowires from the electrolyte onto the substrate when the substrate holder with the substrate has been inserted into the chamber” is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device (MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding claim 2, in the instant claim the common casing of Quednau reads on the claimed chamber which is made of a material impermeable to the electrolyte [0129].
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, the claimed “designed to” does not further structurally limit the claimed control unit. Moreover Quednau discloses a control unit and adjusting parameters overtime [0023], [0101].
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, the claimed “designed to” does not further structurally limit the claimed control unit. Moreover Quednau discloses a control unit that is connected with a pressure device such that the pressure and/or a time of course of the pressure force can be controlled [0109]-[0110].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Quednau discloses a sponge (10) (= an elastic element) that is placed on the substrate which is detachably connected to the receptacle (33) [0155]. The sponge may be removed from the substrate by adjusting the pressure unit (9) [0146].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Quednau discloses the device comprising the sponge placed on the foil [0146]. The claimed “can be” is not a positive recitation of a structural element. The phrase “can be arranged” is not a positive requirement. The claimed “movable rest” is not particularly structurally limiting.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quednau et al. (DE 102017104905) in view of Yu (CN 209602661).
Regarding claims 5-6, 13-14 and 19-20, Quednau fails to disclose the claim pump (as applied to claim 5, 13 and 19) and the claimed filter (as applied to claim 6, 14 and 20).
In the same or similar field of electroplating devices, Yu discloses a device comprising an environmentally friendly electroplating waste liquid filtration (title). Yu discloses the device comprising a filter cartridge (3) and a pump (5) that are fitted with shock-absorbing assemblies to reduce the noise and vibration caused by their use [0015], [0025].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a pump and a filter because Yu discloses an electroplating device fitted with a pump and filter for filtering impurities in used electrolyte in an environmentally friendly manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0027294 – rotating cylinder, nanostructures
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights