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 .
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.
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) 1-5, 7-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (USPGPub 2012/0248077) in view of Bangera et al. (USPGPub 2013/0296812).
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches that it is known to provide an actuator embedded in a holder (Fig. 6a) wherein the bottom of the holder may be considered to have a second face and the top a first face and wherein the bottom surface, top surface or the bottom flat section of the holder may be considered a “plate” wherein the holder comprises a recesses and an aperture extending through it, the recess and therefore through the plate, wherein the actuator (21) defines an actuator aperture that may have its diameter changed. Ho fails to teach a plurality of actuators provided in a single plate and wherein the actuator is a shape-memory actuator. However, the provision of a plurality of actuators in a single plate would constitute a mere duplication of prior art parts. It would require duplication of the parts of the prior art invention (i.e., multiple actuators, holders and etc.) wherein the Court has long held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). If a plurality of the device of Fig. 6a were provided side by side the bottom surface would reasonably constitute at least a collective “plate”. Further Bangera teaches that the actuators employed in fluid deposition nozzles and their processes may include shape-memory actuators, piezoelectric actuators or electromagnetic actuators [0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape-memory actuator (or any other actuator listed by Bangera) for nozzles of Bangera for the shape memory actuator of Ho for nozzles as a simple substitution of one known fluid supply nozzle actuator for another wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Bangera.
Regarding claims 2, the use of the actuators of Bangera is shown to require electrical connection to the actuator by an electrical control system [0055].
Regarding claim 3, each actuator of Ho in view of Bangera would comprise a controllable zone and combinations of nozzles would define larger zones that would have shapes to them.
Regarding claims 4-5, as stated above, the nozzles of Ho in view of Bangera would constitute a zone having shape. As such, a variation in the shape of the zone provided by Ho in view of Bangera would be considered a mere change in shape of a prior art provided zone wherein the Court has long held that mere changes in shape of a prior art provided element are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness based upon a prior art providing shape, especially in the absence of a new and unexpected result arising from the change in shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Ho in view of Bangera are as shown above. Ho in view of Bangera fails to teach what the shape-memory material of the shape memory actuators specifically would be. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that nitinol is both a common metal for shape memory actuators and is likely the most common shape memory metal employed in all fields. Nitinol is used in a variety of fields including actuators and medical devices such as cardiovascular stents because of its ability to retain an original shape after release from an altered or compressed shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nitinol as the shape memory metal of Ho in view Bangera as a simple substitution of the shape memory alloy of Ho in view of Bangera with a known shape memory alloy in the art wherein the substitution of one for the other would have been predictable based upon the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, the actuator of Ho would generally be described as “cone shaped”.
Regarding claim 9, the inner and outer material of the claim are not required to be different and as such the provided actuator materials of Ho in view of Bangera read upon the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the actuator of Ho would generally be described as “cone shaped” and could be described as spring shaped having a larger top than bottom section. As such the shape of the invention of Ho in view of Bangera would generally be considered to have a conical spring shape. Further if this were not the case, this would constitute a mere change in shape of the prior art provided actuator shape wherein the Court has long held that mere changes in shape of a prior art provided element are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness based upon a prior art providing shape, especially in the absence of a new and unexpected result arising from the change in shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12-13, Ho teaches that it is known to provide an actuator embedded in a holder (Fig. 6a) wherein the bottom of the holder may be considered to have a second face and the top a first face and wherein the bottom surface, top surface or the bottom flat section of the holder may be considered a “plate” wherein the holder comprises a recesses and an aperture extending through it, the recess and therefore through the plate, wherein the actuator (21) defines an actuator aperture that may have its diameter changed. Ho fails to teach a plurality of actuators provided in a single plate and wherein the actuator is a shape-memory actuator. However, the provision of a plurality of actuators in a single plate would constitute a mere duplication of prior art parts. It would require duplication of the parts of the prior art invention (i.e., multiple actuators, holders and etc.) wherein the Court has long held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). If a plurality of the device of Fig. 6a were provided side by side the bottom surface would reasonably constitute at least a collective “plate”. Further Bangera teaches that the actuators employed in fluid deposition nozzles and their processes may include shape-memory actuators, piezoelectric actuators or electromagnetic actuators [0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape-memory actuator (or any other actuator listed by Bangera) for nozzles of Bangera for the shape memory actuator of Ho for nozzles as a simple substitution of one known fluid supply nozzle actuator for another wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Bangera. Ho in view of Bangera fails to necessarily state that the operation takes place in a chamber wherein the substrate is held in any manner although the construction of the nozzle and the manner in which they are shown in Ho and Bangera would reasonably imply that the nozzles are intended to be or at least capable of being used from an overhead direction. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that many coating operations take place in chambers wherein a substrate is held in some manner. This takes place in semiconductor processing, paint shops, furniture manufacture and almost all fields wherein the spray or deposition of liquid might require cleanup, release toxins into the air for workers, expose environments and personnel to corrosive materials or dangers associated with elevated or reduced temperatures of provided elements. Substrates are held for coating accuracy, safety and for automation such as conveyor belt movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operations of Ho in view of Bangera in a chamber wherein the substrates are held in order to address the known problems associated with not performing these processes as stated above.
Regarding claims 14, the use of the actuators of Bangera is shown to require electrical connection to the actuator by an electrical control system [0055].
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (USPGPub 2012/0248077) in view of Bangera et al. (USPGPub 2013/0296812) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-14 above and further in view of Bosshard et al. (USPGPub 2007/0112326).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Ho in view of Bangera are as shown above. Ho in view of Bangera fails to teach necessarily that the shape memory actuators provided are associated with the provision of resistance heating provided by the electrical connections. However, Bosshard shows that shape memory actuators are known to be operated by the provision of electrically provided resistance heating [0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape memory actuators of Ho in view of Bangera with those of Bosshard as a simple substitution of one known operation method or type of shape memory actuator for another wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Bosshard.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings of Ho in view of Bangera are as shown above. Ho in view of Bangera fails to teach necessarily that the shape memory actuators provided are associated with the provision of resistance heating provided by the electrical connections. However, Bosshard shows that shape memory actuators are known to be operated by the provision of electrically provided resistance heating [0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape memory actuators of Ho in view of Bangera with those of Bosshard as a simple substitution of one known operation method or type of shape memory actuator for another wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Bosshard.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (USPGPub 2012/0248077) in view of Bangera et al. (USPGPub 2013/0296812) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-14 above and further in view of Schneider et al. (DE2913805).
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Ho in view of Bangera are a shown above. Ho in view of Bangera fails to teach wherein an exterior surface of the nozzles comprises PTFE. However, Schneider teaches that it is known to provide coating nozzles with a coating of PTFE to allow for easier cleaning of the nozzles (Please include citation in Schneider). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the structures of Ho in view of Bangera with a PTFE coatings as described by Schneider in order to allow for the ease of cleaning of the nozzle structures of Ho in view of Bangera.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717