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
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
-Group I, claims 1-9, (C25D17/007) drawn to a system of at least two distribution body elements;
-Group II, claims 10-17, (Y10T29/49826) drawn to a manufacturing method for at least two distribution body elements.
Lack of Unity
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The inventions of the Groups I and II lack the same or corresponding technical feature based on a review of EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner). The cited reference appears to demonstrate that the claimed technical feature does not define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Accordingly, the prior art of the record supports restriction of the claimed subject matter in the groups as mentioned immediately above.
Wiener teaches a system (2, 9) of at least two distribution body elements (5) for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate (8) ,wherein each distribution body element (5) has a plate shape, wherein each distribution body element (5) comprises jet openings (electrolyte nozzles, smaller circular openings labeled 6) for distributing a process fluid from inside the distribution body element (5) to the substrate (8) to be treated and drain openings (electrolyte nozzles, longer slot shaped openings labeled 6) for distributing the process fluid and an electric current through the distribution body element, and wherein each distribution body element (5) has a connecting area (section including 7) configured to be connected to a connecting area (section including 7’) of another distribution body element (5) to form a modular distribution body comprising at least two distribution body elements (5, 5). (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 1-3 and 5, paragraphs 1, 14, 22-25, 70-72, 75, 79, and 80-83.)
As a result, there is no “special technical feature” linking groups I and II.
Unity only exists when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding claimed special features.
In this case, the technical feature shared by each invention is a system of at least two distribution body elements for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate ,wherein each distribution body element has a plate shape, wherein each distribution body element comprises jet openings for distributing a process fluid from inside the distribution body element to the substrate to be treated and drain openings for distributing the process fluid and an electric current through the distribution body element, and wherein each distribution body element has a connecting area configured to be connected to a connecting area of another distribution body element to form a modular distribution body comprising at least two distribution body elements.
The examiner has required restriction between product and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product, and the product claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
A telephone call was made to Matthew R. Carey Reg. No. 61,082 on June 19, 2026 by Examiner Karl Kurple to request a provisional election to the above restriction requirement. Applicant elected claims 1-9 without traverse. Affirmation of this election should be included in writing to the response to this action.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “distribution body element is configured to be releasably connected to the connecting area” in claim 2; “distribution body element is configured to be mechanically connected to the connecting area” in claim 3; “distribution body element is chemically bonded to the connecting area” in claim 6; and “distribution body element is welded to the connecting area” in claim 7; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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: “connecting area” in claims 1-3 and 5-7.
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.
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.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner).
Regarding claim 1, Wiener teaches a system (2, 9) of at least two distribution body elements (5) for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate (8) ,wherein each distribution body element (5) has a plate shape, wherein each distribution body element (5) comprises jet openings (electrolyte nozzles, smaller circular openings labeled 6) for distributing a process fluid from inside the distribution body element (5) to the substrate (8) to be treated and drain openings (electrolyte nozzles, longer slot shaped openings labeled 6) for distributing the process fluid and an electric current through the distribution body element, and wherein each distribution body element (5) has a connecting area (section including 7) configured to be connected to a connecting area (section including 7’) of another distribution body element (5) to form a modular distribution body comprising at least two distribution body elements (5, 5). (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 1-3 and 5, paragraphs 1, 14, 22-25, 70-72, 75, 79, and 80-83.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Weiner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. openings for distributing, element to form). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Weiner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Weiner teaches the connecting area (section including 7) of one distribution body element (5) is configured to be releasably connected to the connecting area (section including 7’) of another distribution body element (5). (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 1, 75, and 81-83.)
Regarding claim 3, Weiner teaches the connecting area (section including 7) of one distribution body element (5) is configured to be mechanically connected to the connecting area (section including 7’) of another distribution body element (5). (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 1, 75, and 81-83.)
Regarding claim 5, Weiner teaches a modular distribution body (2, 9) for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate (8) , comprising a system of at least two distribution body elements (5, 5) according to claim 1, wherein each distribution body element (5) has at least one connecting area (section including 7), and wherein the connecting area (section including 7) of one distribution body element (5) is connected to the connecting area (section including 7’) of another distribution body element (5). (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 1-3 and 5, paragraphs 1, 14, 22-25, 70-72, 75, 79, and 80-83.)
Regarding claim 8, Weiner teaches an overall length of a side of the modular distribution body (2, 9) is a multiple of an element length of a side of one of the distribution body elements (5). (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 1-3 and 5, paragraphs 1, 14, 22-25, 70-72, 75, 79, and 80-83.)
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of EP 3 929 332 A1 to Otzlinger et al (hereinafter Otzlinger). (Note: US Pat. Pub. No. 20230313407 A1 to Otzlinger is being used as a translation for EP 3 929 332 A1.)
Regarding claim 4, Weiner does not explicitly teach a density of openings in the distribution body elements is at least about 50 per dm2, preferably at least about 100 per dm2, more preferably at least about 500 per dm2, and even more preferably at least about 950 per dm2.
Otzlinger is directed to wetting a workpiece in an electrodeposition system using a shield body to provide surface treatment onto the substrate. (See Otzlinger, paragraphs 13-14.)
Otzlinger teaches the number, position, size, shape, and of the openings of the shield body are designed to correspond to the surface features of the substrate. (See Otzlinger, paragraphs 14-16, 19-20, 22-28, 41, 48-49, 51, and 55 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number and spacing (i.e. density) of the openings in the shield boy, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper number and density depending on the location of the surface features of the workpiece, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal treatment of the surface features of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Otzlinger, paragraphs 14-16, 19-20, 22-28, 41, 48-49, 51, and 55 and Figs. 1-2.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911) to Gleissner and Modl (hereinafter Gleissner). (Note: US Pat. Pub. No. 20230008513 A1 to Gleissner is being used as a translation for EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911). )
Regarding claim 6, Weiner does not explicitly teach the connecting area of one distribution body element is chemically bonded to the connecting area of another distribution body element.
Gleissner is directed to a distribution system for a process fluid for chemical and electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate.
Gleissner teaches the connecting area of one distribution body element is chemically bonded (glued) to the connecting area of another distribution body element. (See Gleissner, paragraph 19.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting area of one distribution body element is chemically bonded to the connecting area of another distribution body element, because Gleissner teaches this would enable the two distribution bodies to be connected with each other firmly and with high precision. (See Gleissner, paragraph 19.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911) to Gleissner and Modl (hereinafter Gleissner) and US Pat. Pub. Num. 20090139871 A1 to Saito et al (hereinafter Saito). (Note: US Pat. Pub. No. 20230008513 A1 to Gleissner is being used as a translation for EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911)).
Regarding claim 7, Weiner does not explicitly teach the connecting area of one distribution body element is welded to the connecting area of another distribution body element.
Gleissner teaches the connecting area of one distribution body element is glued to the connecting area of another distribution body element in order to bond these two elements together firmly and with high precision. (See Gleissner, paragraph 19.)
Saito teaches welding is a known process for attaching a shield body to another structure. (See Saito, Abstract, Fig. 34, and paragraph 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting area of one distribution body element is welded to the connecting area of another distribution body element, because Saito teaches welding is a known way to attach a shield body to another structure. (See Saito, Abstract, Fig. 34, and paragraph 144).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100212694 A1 to Arthur Keigler (hereinafter Keigler).
Regarding claim 9, Weiner does not explicitly teach the overall length of a side of the modular distribution body is at least about 1000 mm, preferably at least about 1800 mm, more preferably at least about 3000 mm.
Keigler is directed to wetting a workpiece in an electrodeposition system.
Keigler teaches the module dimensions can vary depending on the application or the workpiece size. (See Keigler, Abstract, paragraph 89.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the overall length of a side of the modular distribution body, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper length depending on the application or the workpiece size, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal size of the modular distribution body in the module. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Keigler, Abstract, Figs. 10-26, paragraphs 1, 87-91.)
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over EP 3 828 316 A1 to Gleissner et al (hereinafter Gleissner) and EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner). (Note: US Pat. Pub. No. 20230008513 A1 to Gleissner is being used as a translation for EP 3 828 316 A1.)
Regarding claim 1, Gleissner teaches a system (10) of at least two distribution body elements (11,12) for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate (substrate) ,wherein each distribution body element (11,12) has a plate shape, and wherein each distribution body element (11) has a connecting area (section including 4 and 14) configured to be connected to a connecting area (section including 4 and 14) of another distribution body element (12) to form a modular distribution body comprising at least two distribution body elements (11, 12). (See Gleissner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 7-10, 12-18, 24-25, 29-32, 35-37, 40-49, 66-67.)
Gleissner does not explicitly teach each distribution body element comprises jet openings for distributing a process fluid from inside the distribution body element to the substrate to be treated and drain openings for distributing the process fluid and an electric current through the distribution body element.
Weiner teaches wherein each distribution body element (11) comprises jet openings (electrolyte nozzles, smaller circular openings labeled 6) for distributing a process fluid from inside the distribution body element (5) to the substrate (8) to be treated and drain openings (electrolyte nozzles, longer slot shaped openings labeled 6) for distributing the process fluid and an electric current through the distribution body element. (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 1-3 and 5, paragraphs 1, 14, 22-25, 70-72, 75, 79, and 80-83.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each distribution body element comprises jet openings for distributing a process fluid from inside the distribution body element to the substrate to be treated and drain openings for distributing the process fluid and an electric current through the distribution body element, because Weiner teaches increasing the number of opening optimize the electrolyte flow and reduce the negative effect of the electrical field. (See Wiener, Abstract, Figs. 1-3 and 5, paragraphs 1, 14, 22-25, 70-72, 75, 79, and 80-83.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).Gleissner in view of Weiner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. openings for distributing, element to form). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Gleissner in view of Weiner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Gleissner teaches the connecting area (11, 14) of one distribution body element is configured to be releasably connected to the connecting area of another distribution body element. (See Gleissner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 66-67.)
Regarding claim 3, Gleissner teaches the connecting area of one distribution body element is configured to be mechanically connected to the connecting area of another distribution body element. (See Gleissner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 66-67.)
Regarding claim 5, Gleissner teaches a modular distribution body (11, 12) for a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment of a substrate (substrate) , comprising a system of at least two distribution body elements (11, 12) according to claim 1, wherein each distribution body element (11) has at least one connecting area (section including 11 and 14), and wherein the connecting area (11 and 14) of one distribution body element (11) is connected to the connecting area (section including 11 and 14) of another distribution body element (12). (See Gleissner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 7-10, 12-18, 24-25, 29-32, 35-37, 40-49, 66-67.)
Regarding claim 6, Gleissner teaches the connecting area of one distribution body element is chemically bonded (glued) to the connecting area of another distribution body element. (See Gleissner, paragraph 19.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting area of one distribution body element is chemically bonded to the connecting area of another distribution body element, because Gleissner teaches this would enable the two distribution bodies to be connected with each other firmly and with high precision. (See Gleissner, paragraph 19.)
Regarding claim 8, Gleissner teaches an overall length of a side of the modular distribution body (11, 12) is a multiple of an element length of a side of one of the distribution body elements ( rows of elements in 11 of Fig. 2). (See Gleissner, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 7-10, 12-18, 24-25, 29-32, 35-37, 40-49, 66-67.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 828 316 A1 to Gleissner et al (hereinafter Gleissner and EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of EP 3 929 332 A1 to Otzlinger et al (hereinafter Otzlinger). (Note: US Pat. Pub. No. 20230313407 A1 to Otzlinger is being used as a translation for EP 3 929 332 A1.)
Regarding claim 4, Gleissner does not explicitly teach a density of openings in the distribution body elements is at least about 50 per dm2, preferably at least about 100 per dm2, more preferably at least about 500 per dm2, and even more preferably at least about 950 per dm2.
Otzlinger is directed to wetting a workpiece in an electrodeposition system using a shield body to provide surface treatment onto the substrate. (See Otzlinger, paragraphs 13-14.)
Otzlinger teaches the number, position, size, shape, and of the openings of the shield body are designed to correspond to the surface features of the substrate. (See Otzlinger, paragraphs 14-16, 19-20, 22-28, 41, 48-49, 51, and 55 and Figs. 1-2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number and spacing (i.e. density) of the openings in the shield boy, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper number and density depending on the location of the surface features of the workpiece, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal treatment of the surface features of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Otzlinger, paragraphs 14-16, 19-20, 22-28, 41, 48-49, 51, and 55 and Figs. 1-2.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911) to Gleissner and Modl (hereinafter Gleissner) and EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 5 and US Pat. Pub. Num. 20090139871 A1 to Saito et al (hereinafter Saito). (Note: US Pat. Pub. No. 20230008513 A1 to Gleissner is being used as a translation for EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911)).
Regarding claim 7, Gleissner does not explicitly teach the connecting area of one distribution body element is welded to the connecting area of another distribution body element.
Gleissner teaches the connecting area of one distribution body element is glued to the connecting area of another distribution body element in order to bond these two elements together firmly and with high precision. (See Gleissner, paragraph 19.)
Saito teaches welding is a known process for attaching a shield body to another structure. (See Saito, Abstract, Fig. 34, and paragraph 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting area of one distribution body element is welded to the connecting area of another distribution body element, because Saito teaches welding is a known way to attach a shield body to another structure. (See Saito, Abstract, Fig. 34, and paragraph 144).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3828316 B1 (WO2021/104911) to Gleissner and Modl (hereinafter Gleissner) and EP 3 221 497 B1 to Wiener et al (hereinafter Weiner) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100212694 A1 to Arthur Keigler (hereinafter Keigler).
Regarding claim 9, Gleissner does not explicitly teach the overall length of a side of the modular distribution body is at least about 1000 mm, preferably at least about 1800 mm, more preferably at least about 3000 mm.
Keigler teaches the module dimensions can vary depending on the application or the workpiece size. (See Keigler, Abstract, paragraph 89.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the overall length of a side of the modular distribution body, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper length depending on the application or the workpiece size, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal size of the modular distribution body in the module. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Keigler, Abstract, Figs. 10-26, paragraphs 1, 87-91.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20240141534 A1 to Gleissner, Hofer, Kolitsch-MataIn et al (hereinafter Hofer) ( Publication Date: September 15, 2022 as WO 2022/189017) recites a distribution body 3 for treating substrate 4, the distribution body includes jet holes 7 and drain holes 9. (See Hofer, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraph 133.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights