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/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Group l: Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS’ entered 09/10/2024 and 09/11/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhiraman (US 20200335303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gandhiraman teaches a printhead for direct write vapor deposition (ABS, P0274), the printhead comprising: a nozzle body including a reservoir for holding a material to be printed (P0369, fig.27); and a nozzle head protruding from the nozzle body and including a nozzle opening for ejection of the material as a vapor-phase ink (fig,27, P0388, inks, aerosols), the nozzle opening being in fluid communication with the reservoir (fig.27), wherein the nozzle head protrudes from the nozzle body (annotated fig.27).
Gandhiraman is not specific to the nozzle head protruding a distance of at least 10 microns, however, this appears to be the case based on fig.27. However, if this is a variation from the instant limitation, it amounts to a change in shape of the nozzle. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.27 Gandhiraman
Regarding claim 2, Gandhiraman teaches the nozzle opening has a width or diameter of 50nm (P0171) which is fully within a range from 30 nm to 100 microns.
Regarding claim 3, Gandhiraman teaches the printhead is fabricated from silicon (P0171) which meets the limitation of a semiconductor wafer.
Regarding claim 4, Gandhiraman teaches a channel extends between the reservoir and the nozzle opening for flow of the vapor-phase ink, the channel having a width or diameter smaller than that of the reservoir and larger than that of the nozzle opening (fig.27).
Regarding claim 5, Gandhiraman teaches a volume of the reservoir varies from 100-10000 cubic mm (P0369) but is not specific to the width or diameter of the reservoir being in a range from about 100 microns to about 5000 microns. The volume of Gandhiramans reservoir indicates that the diameter of the reservoir would be larger than in instant limitation.
Gandhiraman discloses the claimed invention except for the smaller diameter of the reservoir. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a reservoir of a desired size since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art, One would have been motivated to scale the size of a reservoir to be smaller in order to accommodate the specifically desired material for printing.
Regarding claim 6, Gandhiraman teaches a plurality of the nozzle heads and the nozzle openings (P0143, P0192).
Regarding claims 7-8, Gandhiraman teaches a plurality of the reservoirs each of the reservoirs is in fluid communication with one of the nozzle openings (P0427).
Regarding claim 9, Gandhiraman teaches that multiple nozzles may be used or configured in a cluster (P0192) and teaches a plurality of reservoirs may be used (P0427). While Gandhiraman is not specific to each of the reservoirs is in fluid communication with more than one of the nozzle openings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have this arrangement to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the ability to print more material in a shorter amount of time with more nozzles connected to the same reservoir. Further this would be obvious to try as there are limited configurations for connection reservoirs to nozzles such that each reservoir could be feeding one nozzle or many.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhiraman (US 20200335303 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gandhiraman teaches a system for direct write vapor deposition (ABS, P0273), the system comprising: a printhead (P0274) comprising: a nozzle body including a reservoir for holding a material to be printed (fig.27, 502, reservoir); and a nozzle head protruding from the nozzle body and including a nozzle opening for ejection of the material as a vapor-phase ink (fig.27, P0388, inks, aerosols), the nozzle opening being in fluid communication with the reservoir (fig.27); a heat source positioned to heat the printhead (plasma, ABS, P0182, electrodes, 221,222); a substrate in opposition to the nozzle opening for deposition of the vapor-phase ink (P0030); and an x-y-z motion stage configured to move the substrate relative to the printhead (P0317).
Regarding claim 11, Gandhiraman teaches a tilt stage configured to align the nozzle opening with the substrate (P0299, P0317-0318).
Regarding claim 12, Gandhiraman teaches a distance between the substrate and the nozzle opening is 3-5mm (P0434) which is within +/-30% of a width or diameter of the nozzle opening (P0171, where the range of diameter of the nozzle opening orifice is 50nm-5cm, and 3-5mm is fully withing this range).
Regarding claim 14, Gandhiraman teaches the printhead further comprises an inlet to the nozzle body for delivery of the material to be printed into the reservoir (fig.27, 503).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhiraman (US 20200335303 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Richardson (EP 1319733 A2).
Regarding claim 13, Gandhiraman is silent to the system being enclosed in a vacuum chamber for operation.
Richardson, in the same field of endeavor, vapor deposition, teaches the system being enclosed in a vacuum chamber for operation (P0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Gandhiraman to have the system being enclosed in a vacuum chamber for operation as in Richardson to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the ability to control the characteristics of the final result of the process as taught by Richardson (P0014).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741