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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 April 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12 and 16-19) was previously acknowledged.
Non-elected claims 13-15 and 20 were previously withdrawn without traverse and are now cancelled. Previously elected claim 5 was previously cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6 September 2023 fails to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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: evaporation section in claim 1 which has interpreted as a crucible and equivalents thereto; nozzle section in claim 1 which has been interpreted as a nozzle and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at pages 14-15; claim 6 layer thickness sensor adjustment mechanism which has interpreted as a motor, e.g., and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification at page 9; claim 8 distance sensor adjustment mechanism which has interpreted as a motor, e.g., and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification; pivoting device in claim 11 which has interpreted as a movable suspension, adjustment unit (e.g. motor as defined elsewhere in the specification), and a coupling unit (connecting rod) and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at pages 14-15 and illustrated in Fig. 2; claim 12 jet vapor deposition device which has interpreted as a crucible and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at pages 14-15.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: strip positioning assembly wherein structure (i.e. first guide roller and second guide roller) to entirely perform the recited function is also set forth in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1 strip positioning assembly which has been interpreted as the recited as at least one first guide roller arranged on a first side of the strip and a second guide roller arranged on a second side of the strip.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Additional Claim Interpretations
Although not explicitly disclosed in the specification, Applicant has amended the claims to include a control unit that includes a processor and memory, wherein inclusion of memory is explicitly disclosed and a processor is considered to be implicitly disclosed based on the language pointed to by Applicant in their most recent submission, wherein a processer is considered necessary at least for receiving and reading values and implementing a control loop in combination with memory. As always, original and explicit disclosure of features for which Applicant seeks protection is encouraged and is viewed as an extremely important part of compact prosecution. Please note, Applicant’s recited claim language does not entitle to them anything more than what is explicitly disclosed in their disclosure. So, for example, prior art that implicitly discloses a control unit including a processor and memory, similar to applicant, would be at least be relevant.
With respect to claim limitations reciting “wherein when viewed in the strip transport direction” these limitations, which necessitate an actual position, have been interpreted as an actual “position” based on actual intended direction of strip transport, e.g., “in front of” corresponding to an upstream position and “behind” corresponding to a downstream position with respect to the coating zone, rather than any other position that could also be considered/interpreted “in front of” or “behind”, also when viewed in the strip transport direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 4 still includes unclarified recitations with respect to the first guide roller and the second guide roller. First, it is unclear how the newly added third paragraph and the limitations thereof after conjunction “or” are meant to relate to the first two paragraphs of the claim. Second, the third paragraph of the claim appears to require that the second guide roller is “fixed” and “movable” without clearly setting forth how these two contrary features are meant to be included as part of the claimed invention, which is an apparatus. Examiner does note that it appears possible, but not clear, that at least some of the discrepancy is relatable to an intended use of the apparatus or a feature intended to be attributed to, e.g., a programmable controller/control unit. Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In order to expedite examination, Examiner has interpreted the claim language to the best of their ability which appears to fairly include an interpretation where the third paragraph is essentially optional when the limitations of the first two paragraphs are met by the prior art. Additionally, if Applicant intends for specific features (e.g., method steps or intended uses w/o specific programming) to be attributable to the control unit, this should be clearly recited in the claims in accordance with what is set forth in the original disclosure.
Clarification and/or correction is requested. Examiner also requests Applicant and Applicant’s Attorney’s assistance in reviewing and ensuring the claims are aligned with 35 USC 112, b according to basic US practice.
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(s) 1-4, 10-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0258476 to Britt et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0226092 to Mosshammer and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0047114 to Yokoyama et al. Note: U.S. Patent No. 7,194,197 to Wendt et al. is incorporated by reference in Britt et al.
Regarding claim 1: Britt et al. disclose a coating system substantially as claimed and capable of coating a metal strip with a material in a gas phase substantially as claimed and comprising: a coating chamber (e.g., Fig. 3, 100) having a chamber inlet and a chamber outlet (also see, e.g., para. 40) for transporting the strip through the coating chamber; a device for vapor deposition of the material with an evaporation section/crucible (see, e.g., Fig 4) for evaporating the material into a gas phase, and having a nozzle section/nozzle (124) for guiding the material in the gas phase to a nozzle outlet of the nozzle section that opens within the coating chamber, for discharging the material in the gaseous phase towards the strip in the direction of a strip surface of the strip to be coated, in order to continuously contact the strip surface to be coated with the material in the gaseous phase in a coating zone (one of 110, 112, 126, 128, 132, 134, 136, 138) through which the strip is transported, and to form a coating on the strip surface by condensation; and a strip positioning assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 7, 200 and paras. 66-70) which is arranged in front of at least one of the coating zones, for continuous correction of the strip transportation, for a controlled or regulated adjustment of a transverse arc of the strip (by providing designated angles, the arrangement allows for controlled or regulated adjustment of a transverse arc of the strip, e.g., with respect to a strip transported in a plane). Britt et al. further disclose, when viewed in the transport direction, a layer thickness sensor (e.g., 130a and 130b) is positioned behind (i.e. downstream from) the coating zone for contactless determination (e.g. monitoring) of layer thickness values of the coating (see, e.g., paras. 54 and 60-62) and data generated during a monitoring step may be used and or/processed by a controller to provide feed-back control and/or correction adjustment of processing steps (see, e.g., para. 64-65).
However, while Britt et al. do disclose using layer thickness values and data generated during a monitoring step to provide feed-back control and correction of processing steps, Britt et al. et al. fail to explicitly disclose the layer thickness sensor is coupled to the strip positioning assembly via a control unit that includes a processor and a memory, and the control unit is configured to activate the strip positioning assembly in order to adjust the strip positioning as a function of detected layer thickness values.
Mosshammer teaches providing a coating system for coating a strip, wherein a layer thickness sensor (e.g. Fig. 7A, 714) is coupled to a strip positioning assembly (108 and 1602) via a control unit (1802) that includes a processor and a memory (or obvious equivalents thereof), and the control unit is configured to activate the strip positioning assembly in order to adjust strip positioning as a function of detected layer thickness values for the purpose of creating a system with an open-loop control and/or closed-loop control which makes it possible to partly or fully automatically create layer systems, put then into operation and to keep them stable during operation (also see, e.g., Figs. 1, 3; paras. 30-40, 53-63, 130-131, 142-172, 201-203). (Note: Structure 702 in Fig. 7A appears to be mislabeled and appears to correspond to 700 in the specification).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Britt et al. the layer thickness sensor is coupled to the strip positioning assembly via a control unit that includes a processor and a memory (or obvious equivalents thereof), and the control unit is configured to activate the strip positioning assembly in order to adjust strip positioning as a function of detected layer thickness values for the purpose of creating a system with an open-loop control and/or closed-loop control which makes it possible to partly or fully automatically create layer systems, put then into operation and to keep them stable during operation as taught by Mosshammer.
Britt et al. further fails to disclose all details of the strip positioning assembly, such as the strip positioning assembly has at least one guide roller arranged on a first side of the strip and a second guide roller arranged on a second side of the strip, wherein the first guide roller and the second guide roller are positioned such that both the first guide roller and the second guide roller are in contact with the strip when the strip is transported.
Yokoyama et al. disclose a strip position assembly comprising at least one first guide roller (Figs. 1-4, 44) arranged on a first side of the strip and a second guide roller (also 44) arranged on a second side of the strip, wherein the first guide roller and the second guide roller are positioned such that both the first guide roller and the second guide roller are in contact with the strip when the strip is transported for the purpose of tensioning the strip along the widthwise direction (see, e.g., para. 28). Additionally, Yokoyama et al.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided at least one first guide roller arranged on a first side of the strip and a second guide roller arranged on a second side of the strip, wherein the first guide roller and the second guide roller are positioned such that both the first guide roller and the second guide roller are in contact with the strip when the strip is transported in order to tension the strip along the widthwise direction as taught by Yokoyama et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Britt et al., Yokoyama et al. disclose a plurality of top and bottom rollers corresponding to first guide rollers and second guide rollers, respectively, such that the first guide roller and the second guide roller may be spaced apart from one another in the strip transport direction. See, e.g., Figs. 1-4.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Britt et al., Yokoyama et al. the strip position assembly may be provided at various locations including, but not limited to directly before a coating zone. See, e.g., Figs. 1-4.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Britt et al., Yokoyama et al. teach that an axis of rotation of the first guide roller is fixed or is configured to be continuously fixed during strip transport, and an axis of rotation of the second guide roller at a point of contact of the strip with the second guide roller is movable in a direction perpendicular to the strip surface, or in a direction with a directional component perpendicular to the strip surface, (e.g., a first guide roller attached to 92 may have a fixed axis of rotation and a second guide roller attached to 93 may have an axis or rotation movable in a direction perpendicular to the strip surface, or in a direction with a directional component perpendicular to the strip surface), or wherein an axis or rotation of the second guide roller is fixed or is configured to be continuously fixed during strip transport, and the axis of rotation of the first guide roller and the second guide roller at a point of contact of the strip with the fist guide roller is movable in a direction perpendicular to the strip surface, or in a direction with a directional component perpendicular to the strip surface. See, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paras, 28-50.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Britt et al., Yokoyama et al. teach wherein respective axes of rotation of the at least one first guide roller and the second guide roller are coupled in a rotationally fixed manner to one another about a common pivot point (see, e.g., Fig. 4, 96) so as to be pivotably coupled to the coating chamber for changing the strip position.
With respect to claim 11, in modified Britt et al., Yokoyama et al. teach the system further comprising an strip position sensor (EPC sensor) which is arranged downstream of the strip positioning assembly in the strip transport direction, and which is coupled via a control unit (e.g., 50 and 100) to a pivoting device (see, e.g., multiple structures in Fig. 4 cooperating to suspend and pivot) coupled to the strip positioning assembly, wherein the control unit is configured to activate the pivoting device in order to adjust the strip position as a function of the sensor signal of the strip position sensor. Also, see, e.g., paras. 39-45.
Yokoyama et al. fail to explicitly disclose the strip position sensor is an optical strip position sensor. Nevertheless, Britt et al. disclose that sensing within the system can take place by various technologies. Additionally, the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), wherein the sensor in Yokoyama et al. is capable of the claimed functionality.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Britt et al., Britt et al., teach the device for vapor deposition of the material is a jet vapor deposition device (i.e. crucible).
With respect to claim 16, modified Britt et al. fail to disclose the exact dimensions of the system, however the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 17, in modified Britt et al., Britt et al. disclose, the layer thickness sensor may be an X-ray fluorescence sensor (see, e.g., paras. 54 and 60-62).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Britt et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 10-12 and 16-17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 5,980,975 to Nomura et al.
Modified Britt et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Britt et al. fail to disclose the layer thickness sensor is movably positioned in a transversing manner, and is movable by means of a layer thickness sensor adjustment mechanism for determining layer thickness values formed as a coating thickness profile and/or the layer thickness sensor is movably positioned in the coating chamber.
Nomura et al. teach providing a sensor adjustment mechanism functionally capable of positioning a sensor in a transverse manner with respect to a substrate for the purpose of taking film thickness measurements according to the size (i.e. width) of a substrate (see, e.g., column 15, rows 36-47). The movement mechanism is considered to be equivalent to the coating thickness sensor adjustment mechanism. Additionally, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Britt et al. the layer thickness sensor is movably positioned in a transversing manner, and is movable by means of a coating thickness sensor adjustment mechanism for determining coating thickness values formed as a coating thickness profile and/or the layer thickness sensor is movably positioned in the coating chamber in order to take film thickness measurements according to the size (i.e. width) of a substrate/strip as taught by Nomura et al.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Britt et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 10-12 and 16-17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0207264 to Kummel et al.
Modified Britt et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Britt et al. fail to disclose the system further comprising a distance sensor for determining distance values of the strip, which distance sensor is positioned in front of the coating zone viewed in the strip transport direction.
Kummel et al. teach providing a distance sensor (33 and/or 36) for determining distance values of a strip, which distance sensor is positioned in front of a coating zone viewed in the strip transport direction for the purpose of detect and correct a position of the strip if necessary (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and paras. 32 and 40).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a distance sensor in modified Britt et al. for determining distance values of the strip, which distance sensor is positioned in front of the coating zone viewed in the strip transport direction in order to detect and correct a position of the strip, if necessary, as taught by Kummel et al.
Additionally, with respect to claim 9, in modified Britt et al., Kummel et al. disclose a distance sensor as described above with respect to claim 7. Further, with respect to claim 9, Kummel et al. disclose the distance sensor is coupled to a strip positioning assembly (30) via a control unit (34), and the control unit is configured to activate the strip positioning assembly in order to adjust strip positioning as a function of detected distance values. One of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would recognize that the sensing and detection features of modified Britt et al. could be combined with the sensing and detection features of Kummel and connected to the control unit to adjust strip positioning as also taught by modified Britt et al. and Kummel e al. in order to achieve a system with increased control and optimization of processing parameters using a coating process as taught by the references.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Britt et al. as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 5,980,975 to Nomura et al.
Modified Britt et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Britt et al. fail to disclose the distance sensor is movably positioned in a transversing manner and is movable by means of a distance sensor adjustment mechanism.
Nomura et al. teach providing a sensor adjustment mechanism functionally capable of positioning a sensor in a transverse manner with respect to a substrate for the purpose of taking film measurements according to the size (i.e. width) of a substrate (see, e.g., column 15, rows 36-47). The movement mechanism is considered to be equivalent to the distance sensor adjustment mechanism. Additionally, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Britt et al. the distance sensor is movably positioned in a transversing manner and is movable by means of a distance sensor adjustment mechanism in order to take distance measurements according to the size (i.e. width) of a substrate/strip as taught by Nomura et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Britt et al. as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0203348 to Schlaeppi et al.
Modified Britt et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Britt et al. fail to disclose the distance sensor is an inductive or capacitive sensor.
Schlaeppi et al. disclose use of a capacitive sensor for the purpose of measuring the position (i.e. distance) of a flexible substrate (see, e.g., para. 48). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the distance sensor in modified Britt et al. as a capacitive sensor in order to similarly measure the position (i.e. distance) of the strip as taught by Schlaeppi et al.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 4 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular Examiner notes that previously relied upon reference, Britt et al., addresses the amended (newly added) subject matter of claim 1. See above for modified rejection. Although, a previous rejection with respect 112 para. b has been overcome by claim amendment with respect to claim 4, no particular argument regarding the relied upon prior art has been provided for the claim. Thus, the rejection thereof remains similar to the rejection presented in the previous office action.
Also, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further still, regarding the combination of references relied upon, Examiner notes that Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub. Nos. 2009/0191327 and 2019/0242011 disclose measuring a layer thickness and controlling one or more process parameters of a coating tool responsive to the measurement of the thickness of the coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights