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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/9/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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) 1-2, 5, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Moreau et al. (US 2014/0168293 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17:
Moreau et al. disclose an apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a stage (tray 22) on which a substrate (24) is mounted (Fig. 1); and
an ink ejection module (print head carriage 40) that discharges ink onto the substrate (paragraph 72 & Fig. 3),
wherein the ink ejection module comprises:
a head (print head 100) comprising a plurality of ejection holes (nozzles 164) through which the ink is sprayed (paragraph 72 & Fig. 4C); and
an alignment module (at least adapter 110 + mounting plate 120) that is connected to the head (Figs. 5-6) and aligns the head (paragraph 75),
wherein the alignment module comprises:
a first alignment portion (120); and
a second alignment portion (110) that moves relative to the first alignment portion (paragraph 86) and to which the head is fixed (Fig. 6); and
wherein the first alignment portion comprises:
a first alignment frame (plate 120a); and
a first operation portion (at least receiver 127a) that is fixed to the first alignment frame (Fig. 8) and presses the second alignment portion in a first direction (Z direction: paragraph 82 & Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claims 2 and 18:
Moreau et al. disclose all the limitations of claims 1/17, and also that the alignment module further comprises a connection member (fixing screws 169) connecting the first alignment portion to the second alignment portion such than at attractive force parallel to the first direction is applied between the first alignment portion and the second alignment portion (paragraph 98).
Regarding claim 5:
Moreau et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the first alignment portion comprises:
a second operating portion (at least receiver 127b) that is fixed to the first alignment frame (Fig. 8) and presses the second alignment portion in the first direction (paragraph 82 & Figs. 6-8); and
a third operation portion (at least receiver 128) that is fixed to the first alignment frame (Fig. 8) and presses the second alignment portion in the first direction (paragraph 82 & Figs. 6-8), and
the first operating portion, the second operation portion, and the third operation portion are fixed to the first alignment frame at different locations (Figs. 6-8).
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.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau et al. (US 2014/0168293 A1) in view of Ko et al. (US 2020/0023658 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16:
Moreau et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose a sensor that senses location information of the alignment module.
However, Ko et al. disclose an apparatus that enables automatic printhead adjustment (paragraph 78) by utilizing a sensor (752) that senses location information of an alignment module and the head (paragraphs 68) and a controller (754) that controls an ejection module (paragraph 75), wherein the controller aligns the ink ejection module based on the location information of the alignment module and the head (paragraphs 78-80 & Fig. 8).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Moreau et al.’s apparatus to include the alignment controls taught by Ko et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose or make obvious an apparatus comprising an ink ejection module comprising an alignment module comprising a first operating portion comprising “a first bearing having a spherical shape, contacting a side of the first motor, and linearly moving in the first direction.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 3, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Claims 6-7 and 10-14 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose or make obvious an apparatus comprising an ink ejection module comprising an alignment module comprising a first operating portion comprising “a fifth operation portion that is fixed to the first alignment frame and presses the second alignment portion in the second direction, and the fifth operation portion and the fourth operation portion are fixed to the first frame at different locations.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 6, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Claims 8-9 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose or make obvious an apparatus comprising an ink ejection module comprising an alignment module comprising a first operating portion comprising “a fourth bearing having a spherical shape, contacting a side of the fourth motor, and linearly moving in the second direction.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 8, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Claims 19-20 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose or make obvious an alignment module comprising “a first bearing having a spherical shape, contacting a side of the first motor, and linearly moving in the first direction.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 19, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Williams et al. (US 2005/0134672 A1) disclose an alignment module comprising a first alignment portion (fixed plate 28) and a second alignment portion (plate 12), wherein the first alignment portion comprises a first alignment frame (28) and a first operating portion (adjustment screws 34, 36, 38), and connection members (springs 32).
Elferink (US 2016/0039212 A1) disclose a relative alignment module comprising a bearing (44) having a spherical shape (Fig. 2).
Rodriguez et al. (US 2015/0022588 A1) disclose an alignment module comprising a first alignment portion (308) and a second alignment portion (312) to which a head is fixed (Fig. 3), wherein the second alignment portion moves relative to the first alignment portion (Fig. 4).
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853