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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendments received 23 October 2025. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 12-14 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 12 are amended. Claims 4, 5, 9 & 11 are cancelled. Claims 13 and 14 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
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 7, 8 and 14 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 7 recites the limitation "the side" in lines 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 7 and is therefore also rejected.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the inner upper edge" in line 1 spanning to line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,159,544 to Liu et al. (‘544 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 6,394,982 to Karl Ehrenfels (‘982 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘544 teaches a slit nozzle for large area printing, comprising: a pair of manifolds connected to the material source (Fig 2 items 12 and 12’) and including a chamber formed extending laterally in a middle portion of the pair of manifolds (Fig 4 item 12) for storing and ejecting printing material ejected in the form of a line wherein the chamber is sloped such that both sides are lower than a central portion (Fig 4 item 12 shows and Fig 2 items 15 and 35 indicate that the prior art chamber has hemispherical or semihemispherical ends. The ends therefore a curved such that the ends are lower than a central portion); and a seamplate positioned between the pair of manifolds to ensure that printing material ejected from the material source uniformly fills the chamber and used for adjusting an ejection thickness of the printing material (Fig 2 item 30, C4L1-C4L4). ‘544 does not teach a syringe or a syringe engagement part. In the same field of endeavor, extrusion, ‘982 teaches a syringe in which printing material for printing is received (Fig 3 item 46) including a syringe engagement part formed protruding from an upper part of the extruder, configured to be engaged with the syringe, and providing a passage formed in a ventral portion thereof through which the printing material flows from the syringe to the chamber (Fig 4 items 58 – of particular note are the unlabeled protrusions engaging and securing the syringe. See annotated figure below) for the benefit of extruding small quantities of material. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘544 with those of ‘982 for the benefit of extruding small quantities of material in a defined width, thickness, and material configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein the chamber is formed in each of the pair of manifolds, or formed in only one of the pair of manifolds (Fig 2 items 12 and 12`).
Regarding claim 3, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing, wherein the pair of manifolds include a plurality of chambers formed in the manifold (Fig 2 items 12, 12`).
Regarding claim 7, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein, the seamplate is formed with an adhesion plate which is pressed against the side of the syringe engagement part to which the syringe is connected at the top so that the material passes through the syringe engagement part and is smoothly introduced into the chamber (Fig 2 items 20 and 20` and 10 and 10`).
Regarding claim 8, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein the seamplate ejects the printing material evenly by adjusting the ejection thickness and chamber opening rate (Fig 2 item 31 C4L1-C4L4).
Regarding claim 10, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein the pair of manifolds and the seamplate positioned between the pair of manifolds are configured to be bolted and nutted through insertion grooves formed in the pair of manifolds and seamplate (Fig 2 items 16, 16`).
Regarding claim 11, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing characterized in that, the seamplate may be formed with a mounting groove into which a bolt for coupling the pair of manifolds is inserted (Fig 6 items 36).
Regarding claim 12, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein the printing material includes a natural polymer insofar as this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the claimed invention and does not confer or suggest any structural limitations of the claimed apparatus (SEE MPEP 2115 for more information concerning material worked upon by claimed apparatuses).
Regarding claim 13, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein an inner upper edge of the seamplate is configured to be positioned at the same height as an upper edge of the chamber (Fig 2 items 20 and 40).
Regarding claim 14, ‘544 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein the inner upper edge of the seamplate is configured to be adjusted to cover a part or all of the chamber thereby adjusting a filling capacity of the printing material (C4L1-C4L4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘544 in view of ‘982 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0271903 to Durst et al. (‘903 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘544 in view of ‘982 does not teach a plurality syringe engagement parts. In the same field of endeavor, extrusion, ‘903 teaches the slit nozzle for large area printing wherein the pair of manifolds include a plurality of engagement parts and each of the plurality of engagement parts provides a passage formed in the central portion thereof through which the printing material flows from a corresponding source to corresponding one of the plurality of chambers (Fig 5 item 5) for the benefit of extending the width of the extrudate. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘544 in view of ‘982 with those of ‘903 for the benefit of extruding wide ribbons of extrudable material.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant claims, applicant has advanced several arguments. They are:
The previously applied prior art does not teach the sloping of the chamber as claimed.
The previously applied prior art does not teach a protruding syringe engagement part as claimed.
Regarding the first argument, examiner notes that the cited prior art teaches a chamber with hemispherically curved ends. Therefore, the cited prior art chamber ends are sloped so as to be lower than the central portion.
Regarding the second argument, the cited prior art does teach a protruding syringe engagement part as claimed. An annotated figure has been included above in hope of clarifying examiner’s position.
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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743