DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a stage on which a substrate and a coating layer on the substrate are seated, and which moves in a first direction; a body on the stage; a light-emitting element in a center of the body, and emitting light onto the stage” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not capture the arrangement of elements shown in the figures. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites has the light irradiation module 100 may include a stage ST and a body 110. This phrasing does not accurately describe what is shown in the drawings. The drawings show the light irradiation module 100 is opposite the stage ST.
The specification should be reviewed and appropriate correction(s) is required to properly capture what is shown in the drawings.
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:
light emitting element in claims 1 and 17;
moving unit in claim 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
In regards to claims 1 and 17, the recitations of “a body on the stage” together with “a light-emitting element in a center of the body, and emitting light onto the stage”, “print head on the stage” and “light irradiation module on the stage” are unclear as to how the light-emitting element which part of the body on the stage and also emit light onto the stage.
While the specification may support the current claim language, the drawings show the body 110 with the light-emitting element 120 is opposite the stage ST with the substrate WS. For purposes of compact prosecution, the arrangement of element(s) shown in the figure will be addressed below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noro (US 2009/0251520) in view of Murayama (US 2019/0093872).
In regards to claims 1 and 16-17, Noro teaches a printer (1, printer device) comprising:
a drum unit (30, stage) on which a sheet (S, substrate) is seated, and which moves in a rotational/first direction (fig. 1-3; para. 50-51);
a ultraviolet irradiation unit (50, light irradiation module) opposite the drum unit, and irradiating the drum unit with light (fig. 1-3, 5; para. 48, 54); and
a head unit (40, print head) opposite the drum unit and behind the light irradiation module in the first direction, and applying an ink (coating solution) onto the sheet to form a coating layer (fig. 1-4; para. 52-53);
wherein the light irradiation module includes:
a irradiation section carriage (51, body) opposite the drum unit (fig. 2-3, 5; para. 54);
a light-emitting elements (LEDs) are centered on the irradiation section carriage, and emitting light onto the stage (fig. 2-3, 5-6; para. 60-62);
a suction port (55a, suction tube) adjacent to the light-emitting elements in an axial or irradiation/second direction crossing the first direction (fig. 6-7, 8, 11; para. 70);
a duct (55) is connected to the suction port (fig. 6-7, 8, 11; para. 70).
Noro does not explicitly teach a suction pump is connected to the duct, and supplying a negative pressure having an absolute value proportional to an intensity of the light to the suction tube.
However, Murayama teaches a light source device (100) comprising a blower (91) that sucks air via a pipe (92) that is connected to a housing (10) of the light source device. Murayama teaches the air is provided to reduce the temperature gradient among the plurality of light emitting elements (equivalent to supplying a negative pressure having an absolute value proportional to an intensity of the light to the suction tube) (fig. 1-5; para. 8, 26, 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the blower connected to the pipe of Murayama onto the duct of Noro because Murayama teaches it will equalize temperatures of a plurality of light emitting elements (para. 6).
In regards to claims 2 and 19, Noro and Murayama as discussed, where Noro teaches the suction ports comprises a first suction port adjacent to a first side of the light-emitting element in the second direction and a second suction port adjacent to a second side of the light-emitting element in the second direction (fig. 6, 11).
In regards to claim 4, Noro and Murayama as discussed, where Noro teaches a controller (10) which controls the ultraviolet irradiation unit, controls flow of air (fig. 1; para. 47-48, 56, 73-76) and capable of the process of transmitting an output signal related to the negative pressure and proportional to an input signal to the suction pump, based on the input signal received from the light-emitting element.
In regards to claim 18, Noro and Murayama as discussed, where Noro teaches the head unit is spaced apart from the ultraviolet irradiation unit by a distance (fig. 2-3).
Noro and Murayama does not explicitly teach the print head is spaced apart from the light irradiation module along the first direction is about 200 millimeters or less.
However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in the distance between the head unit and the ultraviolet irradiation unit of 0.1 to 200 millimeters will involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality (MPEP 2144.05 II).
In regards to claim 20, Noro and Murayama as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the process result of a thickness of the coating layer increases, an absolute value of the negative pressure provided by the suction pump increases.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, 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 (MPEP214/2115). As Noro and Murayama teaches the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of the claimed process of adjusting the suction pump speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6 and 7-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights