DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 21-36 in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33-35 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haubs (2004/0132103).
Haubs teaches a method of combinatorial screening comprising:
- initially the method is useful for combinatorial chemistry [0003-05, 0095] and includes testing of properties of the mixtures [0003], thereby teaching combinatorial screening,
- causing at least a first and second volume to travel through channels to a mixing channel – see Fig. 1 and related text, wherein different amounts of materials are mixed together to form a first mixture, particularly see [0060-64, 82-85] and claim 1,
– and the teachings also include forming “film strips” which meets the requirement of depositing the mixture to form a thin film [0096], the pattern is not particularly limited and any “strip” would constitute such pattern,
- in regard to the requirement of third and fourth volumes, the teachings include forming a number of different mixtures, see particularly [0014] – thereby teaching forming at least a second thin film from a second mixture as claimed. The teachings also include mixing components in varying concentrations in order to generate a library [0062].
In regard to comparing properties, [0003] includes rapid testing of one or more properties (characteristics) as a result of the combinatorial methods.
In regard to the flushing step, flushing as claimed does not require any particular action beyond another material moving through the mixing channel – as such, by carrying out further processes, the mixing channel is flushed. The teachings include any number of processes carried out continuously, so technically one process is carried out, another process flushes the lines before a third and fourth volume is applied.
Regarding claim 22, the different compounds are metered [0062] – as such each of the volumes flow rate is controlled as claimed (also claim 2, conveying rate).
Regarding claim 26, the teachings include varying concentration [0062].
Regarding claim 27, as per above, the steps are not limited to form any certain number of mixtures – the teachings include forming a substance library [0062] and a large number of samples [0003] therefore would reasonably include the claimed fifth and sixth volumes including different precursors as claimed.
Regarding claim 31, the teachings include materials with different hardness [0104] so it would follow that hardness would be one attribute measured.
Additionally/alternatively, the teachings discuss polymerization [0007, 09] and extensively as noted on the use of polymers, therefore it would follow from the teachings to compare such a characteristic.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, the teachings include applying a mixing device that is defined as either a static mixer or a screw extruder (claims 12 and 13) thereby meeting the requirements of agitating and/or non-contact mixing (static mixer is understood to be non-contact as by definition it does not include moving parts).
Regarding claim 35, the teachings include polymers as noted – since the claim is drawn to inorganic and/or organic polymers, even though Haubs is not specific, the limitation is met (Haubs teaches organic and inorganic materials [0056-60, 0101-02].
Regarding claim 41, in the combination as described above, different materials are flowed through the system so it is further obvious to include a different material after the first and second precursors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33-35, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haubs in view of Becht (2007/0140045).
The teachings of Haubs are described above, while the Office initially holds the flushing is taught by Haubs, as the claims are now drawn to more distinction in the flushing, the teachings of Becht are applied. All elements of Haubs are addressed as per above, with Becht applied to the flushing element. In regard to the flushing step, Becht generally teaches that in a mixing system, it is useful to use a flushing liquid to flush out channels, see [0023, 32-33] particularly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the flushing step of Becht to the teachings of Haubs. In combining the elements, one would flush the lines at any given time. Flushing in between different elements is well known for cleaning of lines.
The additional claims as indicated per Haubs above are rejected in the same manner and will not be repeated.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, the teachings of Becht include a flushing liquid which would be understood as different than the first and second precursors. In regard to the specific material, Becht generally teaches “liquid” and the selection of an alcohol such as claimed or water would be well understood liquids and would be encompassed within the claimed range. Further, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of any known element for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, to select a liquid such as water or the claimed alcohols wherein a liquid is taught is not demonstrated as critical and would have been an obvious selection.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs in view of Teichler (Adv. Energy Matls).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs and Becht in view of Teichler (Adv. Energy Matls).
The teachings of Haubs are described above – Haubs teaches mixing polymers (see [0101-134]) but does not teach any method of depositing, such as the claimed inkjet printing. Teichler teaches thought that it is known and useful to deposit polymers using inkjet printing, and such a method is useful within the scope of combinatorial screening, see particularly abstract and section 2.3. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the (polymeric) mixtures of Haubs using the inkjet printing method of Teichler as Haubs teaches forming mixtures that are used in combinatorial screening but does not explicitly teach a method of depositing (i.e. forming the strips (or pellets) and Teichler teaches that inkjet printing is useful for applying such materials. In combining the methods, one would, for example use the mixture of Haubs to feed the inkjet printer of Teichler as Haubs forms various polymeric materials useful for combinatorial screening, which is also the intent of Teichler.
Claims 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs OR, alternatively Haubs and Becht.
Regarding claim 25, the teachings of Haubs are not limited on the timing of applying the materials – as materials are applied and concentrations are adjusted, the step of part of a depositing step overlapping with causing additional volumes to be prepared would have been obvious in order to expedite processing. Further, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. a change in sequence of adding ingredients is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, as noted, temporal overlap of steps would improve the time of production as opposed to not overlapping such steps.
Regarding claim 32, the teachings are silent on where or how the material is deposited (formed into a strip) it would not be novel or unique to overlap the strips. While not specifically the same as the control of the sequence of adding ingredients as above, it follows within the same concept as a routine manner of controlling the process.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs in view of McFarland (6,468,806).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs and Becht in view of McFarland (6,468,806).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, the teachings of Haubs are described above, including forming a large number of materials for combinatorial screening, but not teaching that the substate comprises a plurality of electrodes in the manner claimed. McFarland, however, teaches a combinatorial screening process (abstract), the method includes making materials that are formed on different electrodes and then measuring electrical properties (see particularly claim 1). It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to combine the methods of Haubs and McFarland as Haubs is not limited on the usable of the formed material in the process of combinatorial screening and McFarland teaches that an effective process of forming a combinatorial library includes depositing the materials on electrode substrates in order to measure electrical properties. Further to claim 29 the resistance is measured and to measure the resistance between any of a number of the thin layers would be obvious based on the combined teachings.
Regarding claim 30, even though claim 30 does not actually depend on claim 28, the methods are combined as per claim 28. In regard to the characteristics, wherein the suitability for depositing by piezoelectric triggered drop-on-demand printing is extremely broad/indefinite, the testing of McFarland is interpreted to meet such a requirement as such printers would require a certain measure of electrical charges.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs in view of Mansky (2003/0037601).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haubs and Becht in view of Mansky (2003/0037601).
The teachings of Haubs are described above, the teachings include various additives [0102-09], but Haubs, while teaching any number of additives including flame retardants and pigments, does not teach any of the claimed additives, while the general teachings appear open to any known additive. Mansky teaches that in forming a polymer material, it is useful to include additives such surfactants, cosolvents and colorants (i.e. pigments) [0044]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply any of the additives of Mansky, such as the claimed surfactants and/or cosolvents as Haubs generally teaches additives and Mansky teaches that the claimed additives are useful in polymer compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Haubs teaches continuous production and therefore teaches away from the claimed flushing step.
Initially, this does not address the first interpretation. By performing a continuous process, Haubs is flowing any number of sequential ingredients through the system. When a first and second precursor is flowed, the next precursors necessarily act in a manner to flush the lines (of the first precursors). But secondly, the Office does not agree with the characterization of continuous. Any number of steps, including flushes or purges, may be characterized as a part of the process, therefore a “continuous” process can include such purge/flush steps. The teachings say continuous but do not prohibit flushing compounds that constitute the system being continuously used. Also, continuous is not so rigid as at some point any system would be shut down.
Even the flushing performed as per claim 21 is not overcome by additional process steps as per Haubs in the “continuous” process as described.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights