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
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the FAOM. The submission 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 § 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.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al (US20160282375A1 published 09/29/2016; hereinafter Barnett).
Regarding claim 9, Barnett teaches a gas knife (gas knife 4350 – Fig. 59) comprising a plenum (a head 4018a comprising a flow generator 4352 e.g., a pump, an air compressor – paragraph 226 and Fig. 56) and a plurality of outlets in fluidic communication with the plenum (a number of holes 4400a connected to the pressurized air – paragraph 226 and Fig. 59), the plurality of outlets arranged in parallel along an end of the plenum (the holes 4400a arranged in parallel – Fig. 59), each gas outlet having a slant angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the plenum ranging from between about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees (the holes 4400a having an angle about 20˚, 90-α wherein α is about 70˚, relative to a vertical axis of the device – Fig. 62 and paragraph 234).
Although Barnett does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio between a length of the outlet and a diameter of the outlet is greater than 5, Barnett (Fig. 62) teaches all the structure of the claimed gas outlet. It appears from Fig. 62 to meet the claimed length or if not to scale, the only difference between the Barnett and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions of gas outlet length and width ratio. Furthermore, a device of the claimed ratio would not perform differently than the air knife taught by Barnett. Therefore, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from Barnett (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 10, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the plurality of outlets (10-20 holes 4400a – paragraph 229) are provided at a pitch of between about 3 and about 20 outlets per inch (side portions 4390a, 4390b are generally the same; therefore, side portion 4390a with holes 4400a is half of the width between holes 4400a and 4400b – paragraph 229 and Fig. 60) (the width Wh between hole 4400a and 4400b is about 25 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm – paragraph 231 and Fig. 60) (therefore, Barnett teaches a pitch of between about 10-20 outlets per inch when Wh is 50mm – paragraphs 231, 229 and Fig. 60).
Regarding claim 11, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the pitch ranges from between about 5 and about 15 outlets per inch (10-20 holes 4400a – paragraph 229) (side portions 4390a, 4390b are generally the same; therefore, side portion 4390a with holes 4400a is half of the width between holes 4400a and 4400b – paragraph 229 and Fig. 60) (the width Wh between hole 4400a and 4400b is about 25 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm – paragraph 231 and Fig. 60) (therefore, Barnett teaches a pitch of between about 10-20 outlets per inch when Wh is 50mm (number of holes)/(half of Wh which is about 1in)) – paragraphs 231, 229 and Fig. 60).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of holes and Wh in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the pitch ranges from between about 8 to about 12 outlets per inch (10-20 holes 4400a – paragraph 229) (side portions 4390a, 4390b are generally the same; therefore, side portion 4390a with holes 4400a is half of the width between holes 4400a and 4400b – paragraph 229 and Fig. 60) (the width Wh between hole 4400a and 4400b is about 25 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm – paragraph 231 and Fig. 60) (therefore, Barnett teaches a pitch of between about 10-20 outlets per inch when Wh is 50mm (number of holes)/(half of Wh which is about 1in) – paragraphs 231, 229 and Fig. 60).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of holes and Wh in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the pitch is about 10 outlets per inch (10-20 holes 4400a – paragraph 229) (side portions 4390a, 4390b are generally the same; therefore, side portion 4390a with holes 4400a is half of the width between holes 4400a and 4400b – paragraph 229 and Fig. 60) (the width Wh between hole 4400a and 4400b is about 25 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm – paragraph 231 and Fig. 60) (therefore, Barnett teaches a pitch of between about 10-20 outlets per inch when Wh is 50mm (number of holes)/(half of Wh which is about 1in) – paragraphs 231, 229 and Fig. 60).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of holes and Wh in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9.
Although Barnett does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio between a length of the outlet and a diameter of the outlet is greater than 7.5, Barnett (Fig. 62) teaches all the structure of the claimed gas outlet. It appears from Fig 62 to meet the claimed length or if not to scale, the only difference between the Barnett and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions of gas outlet length and width ratio. Furthermore, a device of the claimed ratio would not perform differently than the air knife taught by Barnett. Therefore, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from Barnett (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 15, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9.
Although Barnett does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio between a length of the outlet and a diameter of the outlet is greater than 10, Barnett (Fig. 62) teaches all the structure of the claimed gas outlet. It appears from Fig 62 to meet the claimed length or if not to scale, the only difference between the Barnett and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions of gas outlet length and width ratio. Furthermore, a device of the claimed ratio would not perform differently than the air knife taught by Barnett. Therefore, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from Barnett (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 16, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the slant angle of the outlet relative to the longitudinal axis of the plenum ranges from between about 25 degrees to about 30 degrees (the holes 4400a having an angle about 20˚, 90-α wherein α is about 70˚, relative to a vertical axis of the device – Fig. 62 and paragraph 234) (the examiner points out that Barnett teaches a 20˚+/−2˚ angle; therefore, Barnett teaches an angle about 25-30˚).
Regarding claim 17, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the slant angle is about 30 degrees (the holes 4400a having an angle about 20˚, 90-α wherein α is about 70˚+/−2˚, relative to a vertical axis of the device – Fig. 62 and paragraph 234) (the examiner points out that Barnett teaches a 20˚+/−2˚ angle; therefore, Barnett teaches an angle about 30˚).
Regarding claim 18, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein the angle of the outlet relative to the longitudinal axis of a plenum is about 30 degrees (the holes having an angle about 20˚, 90-α wherein α is about 70˚+/−2˚, relative to a vertical axis of the device – Fig. 62 and paragraph 234) (the examiner points out that Barnett teaches a 20˚+/−2˚ angle; therefore, Barnett teaches an angle about 30˚); wherein the plurality outlets are provided at a pitch of between about 8 and about 12 outlets per inch (10-20 holes 4400a – paragraph 229) (side portions 4390a, 4390b are generally the same; therefore, side portion 4390a with holes 4400a is half of the width between holes 4400a and 4400b – paragraph 229 and Fig. 60) (the width Wh between hole 4400a and 4400b is about 25 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm – paragraph 231 and Fig. 60) (therefore, Barnett teaches a pitch of between about 10-20 outlets per inch when Wh is 50mm (number of holes)/(half of Wh which is about 1in) – paragraphs 231, 229 and Fig. 60).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of holes and Wh in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Although Barnett does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio between a length of the outlet and a diameter of the outlet is greater than 5, Barnett (Fig. 62) teaches all the structure of the claimed gas outlet. It appears from Fig 62 to meet the claimed length or if not to scale, the only difference between the Barnett and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions of gas outlet length and width ratio. Furthermore, a device of the claimed ratio would not perform differently than the air knife taught by Barnett. Therefore, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from Barnett (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 19, Barnett teaches the automated coverslipper comprising a fluid dispenser (the head assembly 4018a comprising a dispenser mechanism 4019 – Fig. 57 and paragraph 246); and the gas knife of claim 9 (the gas knife 4350 – Fig. 57).
Regarding claim 20, Barnett teaches the gas knife of claim 9, wherein each gas outlet has a tilt angle ranging from between about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees (the holes 4400a having an angle between 40-50˚, half of the angle β, a centerline 4413 – Fig. 60), wherein the tilt angle is the angle in which each of the gas outlets is formed within the body relative to a line along an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the body (the vertical axis of the device is perpendicular to the centerline 4413 – Fig. 60 and 62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 5712727129. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796