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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on November 17, 2025. Claims 1-10 have been canceled. Claim 20 has been amended.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on November 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 20 has been amended. This is found persuasive. As a result, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first wire feeding device”, “first wire blocking device”, “wire heating device” in claims 11 and 20, “second wire feeding device” in claim 12, and “suction device” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the limitations “first wire feeding device” and “second wire feeding device” have been interpreted as the “micromotors” described on page 7.
In light of the specification, the limitation “wire heating device” has been interpreted as the “induction coil” described on page 2.
The specification is devoid to provide any corresponding structure that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the limitation “first wire blocking device” on page 6.
The specification is devoid to provide any corresponding structure that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the limitation “suction device” on page 8.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-20 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.
Claim 12 recites “a horizontal direction of the second wire feeding device” is indefinite because a wire feeding device does not inherently possess a “horizontal direction.” It is unclear whether the recited “horizontal direction” refers to an axis of the device, a direction of movement of the device, or a direction of wire feed. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claimed features.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the first wire material and/or the second wire material include.” This claim is incomplete because it does not specify what the first wire material and/or the second wire material include. As written, the claim lacks an essential limitation and does not define the subject matter being claimed. Because the claim is incomplete, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim limitations “first wire blocking device” in claims 11 and 20 and “suction device” in claim 16 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid to provide any corresponding structure that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the limitations and ascertain the scope of the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 12-19 are also rejected under 112(b) because of dependency on claim 11.
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.
Claims 11, 13-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US 2020/0139468 A1) in view of Methner (DE 102015010209 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Albrecht discloses a droplet applicator configured to generate molten metal droplets having a volume in a range of nanoliters to milliliters (“micro-deposit” 21), the droplet applicator comprising: a first wire feeding device (24) vertically moving a first wire including a first wire material (26 and Par. [0021]); a first wire blocking device configured to block the first wire (Par. [0024] discloses an integrated tool head 33 that includes multiple mixers 31 configured to receive anchor materials 22 and process the anchor materials into electrodes 32 and/or powder streams. The anchor materials include wire feedstock used to form the electrodes. Because the mixers 31 are located within the integrated tool head 33, the tool head necessarily defines the path through which the wire feedstock must pass to be processed into electrodes. The paragraph further discloses that a controller 30 controls each mixer 31, including selectively controlling one or more mixers differently from others. When the controller 30 disables, pauses, or otherwise prevents operation of a mixer 31, the corresponding wire feedstock cannot be received or processed by that mixer. As a result, the wire is prevented from advancing beyond the integrated tool head 33, thereby being blocked at the tool head), wherein the first wire feeding device (24) and the first wire blocking device (33) are arranged within a housing (“integrated” within system 10, see Fig. 1); and a wire heating device (36), wherein the wire heating device (36) heats regions of the first wire that have been introduced into the wire heating device by the first wire feeding device (Par. [0027]), to a temperature above a melting temperature of the first wire material (Par. [0031]).
Albrecht does not disclose the wire heating device arranged, vertically flush, below the first wire feeding device.
Methner teaches a droplet applicator configured to generate molten metal droplets, the applicator comprising a wire heating device (20) arranged, vertically flush, below a first wire feeding device (26, because Figure 1 of the application illustrates an arrangement identical to that show in the Methner figure, the reference reads on the claimed feature of wire heating device arranged vertically flush below first wire feeding device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement between the wire heating device and first wire feeding device of Albrecht by incorporating the wire heating device arranged, vertically flush, below the first wire feeding device as taught by Methner, for the benefit of allowing the wire to travel along a straight path into the heating zone that minimizes wire bending and lateral deflection.
With regard to claim 13, the droplet applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11. Albrecht further discloses that the wire heating device includes an induction coil (“inductor coil”, Par. [0026]).
With regard to claim 14, the droplet applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11. Methner further discloses that the wire heating device has a pointed surface (guide 14 with a pointed surface at the bottom) that can be heated via an electrical resistance (inductor heater 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Albrecht, by incorporating the pointed surface (14) surrounded by inductor heater (20) as taught by Methner, doing it would allow wire is melted on its way through by means of the induction heater, so that a melt of the metal is formed from the wire.
With regard to claim 15, the droplet applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14. Methner further discloses that the pointed surface includes tungsten or carbon or ceramic (“ceramic”, Par. [0013]).
With regard to claim 19, the droplet applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11. Albrecht further discloses that the droplet applicator is configured to fill a rear cavity of a semiconductor component (the applicator of Albrecht is capable of performing the functional features).
With regard to claim 20, since the droplet applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 20.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Methner as applied to claim11 above, and further in view of Funato et al. (US 2016/0045956 A1).
With regard to claim 17, the droplet applicator of Albrecht as modified by Methner discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11. However, they do not disclose that a closure arranged at a vertical distance below the wire heating device, wherein the closure is moveable horizontally.
Funato teaches an applicator, the applicator comprising a closure (Par. [0045]), wherein the closure is moveable horizontally (Fig. 5A-5C).
it is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Funato and the instant invention are directed to a closure for a nozzle In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Funato is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of Albrecht, by incorporating a closure arranged at a vertical distance below the wire heating device, wherein the closure is moveable horizontally as taught by Funato, for the benefit of preventing the nozzle from damage when not in use (Par. [0004-0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 16, and 18 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, the closest cited references disclose almost all the feature. However, the combination of these references fails to teach elements: “a second wire feeding device arranged at a horizontal distance from the first wire feeding device, wherein a horizontal direction of the second wire feeding device is arranged perpendicularly to a vertical direction, wherein the second wire feeding device vertically moves a second wire, wherein a diameter of the first wire and a diameter of the second wire are different from one another, and the wire heating device is configured to move horizontally.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752