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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species Ia (claims 1-9, 11-15) in the reply filed on 9/17/26 is acknowledged. Thus, claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species Ib (claim 10), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-9, 11-15 as follows:
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 1-9, 11-15 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.
“the following steps:” (claim 1, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis. The use of: -- “steps of”—is suggested for clarity of the method claim formats.
“is placed” (claim 1, line 4); “is operated”(claim 1, lines 6-7 and 9-10); “is located”(claims 2-4, line 2); “ is implemented” (claim 2, line 9; claim 3, line 4-5) is/are not an active method steps and should be updated to active method limitations (e.g., placing . . . locating . . .implementing . . .) is suggested.
Similar to the above applied to claims 8-9, respectively.
“is operarable”(claim 11, line 3, claim 12, line 2,) should be updated to positive or active method step. Since the claim directed to method inventive step.
Claims 11-15 are in wrong method claim formats and should be updated to positive method claim formats. For above reasons the scope of the claims 11-15 is unclear since no further method limitations existed in these claims only outside structure entities cited therefrom. it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 1 (entirely as present format or form) is awkwardly worded and confusing, the following changes is/are suggested for clarity of the method inventive feature formats:
-- A conductive line repairing method that operatively associated with a jet coating module and a solidifying module, said method comprising steps of:
providing the jet coating module 10 includes a platform unit and the solidifying module 30;
placing an object having at least one line breaking site on the platform unit of a jet-coating module;
operating the jet-coating module to jet and coat a conductive material on the line breaking site; and
operating the solidifying module to solidify the conductive material;
wherein the conductive material, after solidification the line breaking site become the conductive line.
It is also suggested that rewritten claims 2-9, 11-15 to reflect changes as suggested in claim 1 above.
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) 1-9, 11-15 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 5429994) in view of Suzuki et al (JP H10270843 A).
Ishikawa discloses the claimed conductive line repairing method, at least comprising the following steps:
a placing step, in which an object 122/132 having at least one line breaking site is placed on a platform unit of a jet-coating module 4 (see Figs. 3-4);
PNG
media_image1.png
617
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a jetting step, in which the jet-coating module is operated to jet and coat a conductive material 122b on the line breaking site 122 (see Figs. 3-4); and
a solidifying step, in which a solidifying module 5 is operated to have the conductive material solidified (see Fig. 2);
wherein the conductive material, after solidification, makes the line breaking site conducting (see Fig. 3 c-d).
if argues that the Ishikawa does not teach the “a solidifying step, in which a solidifying module 5 is operated to have the conductive material solidified” then Applicants refer to Suzuki et al (see abstract about lines 9-11 and in ¶ [0002] for the concept of repairing conductive pattern by printing and sintering to solidify the conductive pattern, respectively). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teaching of Suzuki et al onto the Ishikawa for various known benefits including the above. The motivation for the combination can be obtained by either reference since they are in same technical field invention.
Limitations of claims 2-5 appear to meet by the combination above (see Figs. 3-4 of the Ishikawa which depicts the breaking cite location set forth in these claims).
As applied to claims 11-15 only outside entities cited in these claims and therefore not inventive method feature when departing from the modified of Ishikawa /Suzuki et al and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
