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 Application
Claims 1-11, 17 and 24-38 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a shutter plate that opens and closes at a rate up to 1/1000 of a second, and one would not have done any optimization to reach the claimed feature. However, as previously noted a shutter plate that opens and closes at a rate up to 1/1000 of a second doesn’t require the shutter plate to open at a speed of 1/1000 of a second, rather it is a range from slower than 1/1000 of a second to a speed up to 1/1000 of a second. Furthermore, Weiss teaches controlling the rate that the shutter plate is opened and closed with a controller (0074) and that the rate should be adjusted based on printing speed (0071). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach a shutter plate that is part of a shutter system connected to a shield that surrounds sides of the nozzle and wherein regardless of whether the shutter plate is in an open or closed state, the shutter system remains connected to the shield. However, the Examiner maintains that Weiss teaches these features. In particular, Weiss teaches a shutter system including an element 206 in Figure 2A that is comparable to a shield around the nozzle and includes shutter plates (202 and 250, Figure 2A); wherein the shutter system remains connected to the shield regardless of whether the shutter plates are open or closed (see Figures 2A and 2B). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the prior art makes obvious these features.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the act of dispensing is performed at a first frequency and the light source is configured to emit light at a second frequency different from the first frequency. In particular, Applicant argues that the variable has not been shown to be result-effective. However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that both the jetting frequency and emitting frequency are result-effective variables as adjusting these frequencies will adjust the rate at which the polymer is applied and cured, thereby adjusting the efficiency of the process, as well as adjusting the size of the droplets that are supplied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range of a difference between the first and second frequency through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-11, 17 and 24-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodvarsson et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0132257) in view of Weiss et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0047309)
I. Regarding claims 1-5, 7-11, 17, 24-30 and 34, Bodvarsson teaches a process of encapsulating a component on a substrate (0044) comprising: dispensing at least a first drop (0068) of a UV-curable polymer (0054) on or around a side of a component on a substrate (0056) by jetting the drop from a nozzle by inkjet printing (0083) to provide a dispensed polymer; curing the dispensed polymer by exposing the dispensed polymer to UV light from a UV light source for a time from 0.5-30 seconds (0075) to obtain an at least surface cured polymer (0073-0075); and repeating the steps of dispensing and curing the dispensed polymer to provide an encapsulated component (0077-0081). Bodvarsson also teaches after the repeating step completely curing the encapsulated component (0080 and note that the second insulation layer curing step will both partially cure and then fully cure the resultant layer resulting in a completely curing step subsequent to the act of repeating), and applying a conductive material (0058) as a shielding material on the encapsulated component (0056) to form a magnetic shield (0059). Bodvarsson also teaches the jetting comprising inkjet printing (0083) which necessarily involves loading additional polymer into the nozzle for dispensing a second drop after dispensing the at least one first drop of polymer. Finally, Bodvarsson teaches performing the method using a system comprising a nozzle configured to dispense the droplets on or around the component being configured for placement above the substrate (inkjet printing, see Bodvarsson at 0083) and a UV light source configured to cure the dispensed polymer (0075). Bodvarsson fails to teach a repeating step of protecting the nozzle while curing the dispensed polymer in the process and fails to teach the method performed with a system explicitly comprising a light source placed above the substrate, moving the light source together with the nozzle and changing an angle of the light source as required by claims 26-28 and a protection element configured to protect the nozzle by placing a cover over the opening of the nozzle, where the protection element comprises a shield aligned with the opening of the nozzle and including a shutter plate that opens and closes at a rate up to 1/1000 of a second to cover an opening on the shield surrounding the nozzle.
First, Weiss teaches a repeating step of protecting a nozzle element from light during curing (0029) of a dispensed UV curable material (0024) by using a shield that surrounds sides of the nozzle element (element 202, Figure 2A and 0032). Weiss further teaches a system comprising a nozzle positioned above a substrate to be coated (element 102, Figure 2A), the nozzle for jetting a UV-curable material onto a substrate, in a system where a UV light source is positioned next to the nozzle and also placed above the substrate (see Figure 1), and a shield around the nozzle as a protecting element for the nozzle to protect from irradiation with the UV light (element 206, Figure 2A). Weiss teaches repeating the act of protecting and unprotecting the nozzle during the printing and exposing process (0029). Weiss teaches the shield aligned with the opening of the nozzle and the protecting and unprotecting being accomplished by moving a shutter plate to cover the opening of the shield and wherein regardless of the state of the shutter plate, the shutter system remains connected to the shield that surrounds the sides of the nozzles (Figures 2A-2B). Additionally, Weiss teaches the light source moving together with the nozzle and the light source can be moved by changing the angle of the light source with respect to the nozzle (see Figure 1 and note that the light source 108 can be moved along a track and locked with a screw at different angles relative to the nozzle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodvarsson’s process by repeatedly protecting and unprotecting the nozzle from light with a shield including a moveable shutter during the step of curing with UV light from a movable light source using a system comprising a nozzle positioned above the substrate, a light source positioned above the substrate moving with the nozzle and the shield around the nozzle element for protecting it during UV curing as disclosed by Weiss. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of a shield protecting element and a system as disclosed by Weiss prevents the radiation during the curing step from curing the polymer material adjacent to the nozzle, thereby preventing clogging of the nozzle (see Weiss at abstract).
Second, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss fail to explicitly teach the shutter plate opens and closes at a rate up to 1/1000 of a second. However, it is noted that this limitation is a range which includes any rate slower than 1/1000 of a second. Furthermore, Weiss teaches controlling the rate that the shutter plate is opened and closed with a controller (0074) and that the rate should be adjusted based on printing speed (0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
II. Regarding claim 6, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach jetting at a frequency of 1 Hz to 1000 Hz. However, the jetting frequency is a result-effective variable as adjusting this frequency will adjust the rate at which the polymer is applied, thereby adjusting the efficiency of the process, as well as adjusting the size of the droplets that are supplied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 31, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss teach all the limitations of claim 1 and inherently the act of dispensing and the act of emitting will be at a first and second frequency respectively. Bodvarsson in view of Weiss fail to explicitly teach the first and second frequency is different. However, the jetting frequency and emitting frequency are result-effective variables as adjusting these frequencies will adjust the rate at which the polymer is applied and cured, thereby adjusting the efficiency of the process, as well as adjusting the size of the droplets that are supplied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range of a difference between the first and second frequency through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
IV. Regarding claims 32, 35 and 36, Bodvarsson teaches a process of encapsulating a component on a substrate (0044) comprising: dispensing at least a first drop (0068) of a UV-curable polymer (0054) on or around a side of a component on a substrate (0056) by jetting the drop from a nozzle by inkjet printing (0083) to provide a dispensed polymer; curing the dispensed polymer by exposing the dispensed polymer to UV light from a UV light source to obtain an at least surface cured polymer (0073-0075); and repeating the steps of dispensing and curing the dispensed polymer to provide an encapsulated component (0077-0081). Bodvarsson also teaches after the repeating step completely curing the encapsulated component (0080 and note that the second insulation layer curing step will both partially cure and then fully cure the resultant layer resulting in completely curing step subsequent to the act of repeating), and applying a conductive material (0058) as a shielding material on the encapsulated component (0056) to form a magnetic shield (0059). Bodvarsson also teaches the jetting comprising inkjet printing (0083) which necessarily involves loading additional polymer into the nozzle for dispensing a second drop after dispensing the at least one first drop of polymer. Finally, Bodvarsson teaches performing the method using a system comprising a nozzle configured to dispense the droplets on or around the component being configured for placement above the substrate (inkjet printing, see Bodvarsson at 0083) and a UV light source configured to cure the dispensed polymer (0075). Bodvarsson fails to teach a repeating step of protecting the nozzle while curing the dispensed polymer in the process and fails to teach the protection element configured to protect the nozzle by moving a shutter plate over the opening of the nozzle, where the protection element comprises a fixed shield surrounding the sides of the nozzles and the shutter plates is connected to the shield regardless of the state of the shutter plate, the shutter plate is moveable relative to the nozzle and when the shutter plate is closed the shutter plate is between the nozzle and the dispensed polymer.
First, Weiss teaches a repeating step of protecting a nozzle element from light during curing (0029) of a dispensed UV curable material (0024) by using a fixed shield that surrounds sides of the nozzle element (element 202, Figure 2A and 0032). Weiss further teaches a system comprising a nozzle positioned above a substrate to be coated (element 102, Figure 2A), the nozzle for jetting a UV-curable material onto a substrate, in a system where a UV light source is positioned next to the nozzle and also placed above the substrate (see Figure 1), and a fixed shield around the nozzle as a protecting element for the nozzle to protect from irradiation with the UV light (element 206, Figure 2A). Weiss teaches repeating the act of protecting and unprotecting the nozzle during the printing and exposing process (0029). Weiss teaches the shield aligned with the opening of the nozzle and the protecting and unprotecting being accomplished by moving a shutter plate (elements 250, Figure 2A) relative to the nozzle to cover the opening of the shield and is between the nozzle and dispensed polymer when the shutter plate is closed (see Figures 2A and 2B) and wherein regardless of the state of the shutter plate, the shutter system remains connected to the shield that surrounds the sides of the nozzles (Figures 2A-2B). Additionally, Weiss teaches the light source moving together with the nozzle and the light source can be moved by changing the angle of the light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodvarsson’s process by repeatedly protecting and unprotecting the nozzle from light with a shield including a moveable shutter, where the shutter remains connected to the shield regardless of state during the step of curing with UV light from a movable light source using a system comprising a nozzle positioned above the substrate, a light source positioned above the substrate moving with the nozzle and the shield around the nozzle element for protecting it during UV curing as disclosed by Weiss. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of a shield protecting element and a system as disclosed by Weiss prevents the radiation during the curing step from curing the polymer material adjacent to the nozzle, thereby preventing clogging of the nozzle (see Weiss at abstract).
V. Regarding claims 33 and 37, Bodvarsson teaches a process of encapsulating a component on a substrate (0044) comprising: dispensing at least a first drop (0068) of a UV-curable polymer (0054) on or around a side of a component on a substrate (0056) by jetting the drop from a nozzle by inkjet printing (0083) to provide a dispensed polymer; curing the dispensed polymer by exposing the dispensed polymer to UV light from a UV light source for a time from 0.5-30 seconds (0075, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) to obtain an at least surface cured polymer (0073-0075); and repeating the steps of dispensing and curing the dispensed polymer to provide an encapsulated component (0077-0081). Bodvarsson also teaches after the repeating step completely curing the encapsulated component (0080 and note that the second insulation layer curing step will both partially cure and then fully cure the resultant layer resulting in completely curing step subsequent to the act of repeating), and applying a conductive material (0058) as a shielding material on the encapsulated component (0056) to form a magnetic shield (0059). Bodvarsson also teaches the jetting comprising inkjet printing (0083) which necessarily involves loading additional polymer into the nozzle for dispensing a second drop after dispensing the at least one first drop of polymer. Finally, Bodvarsson teaches performing the method using a system comprising a nozzle configured to dispense the droplets on or around the component being configured for placement above the substrate (inkjet printing, see Bodvarsson at 0083) and a UV light source configured to cure the dispensed polymer (0075), wherein inherently the act of dispensing and the act of emitting light will be conducted at a first and second frequency, respectively. Bodvarsson fails to teach a repeating step of protecting the nozzle while curing the dispensed polymer in the process and fails to teach the second frequency different from the first frequency.
First, Weiss teaches a repeating step of protecting a nozzle element from light during curing (0029) of a dispensed UV curable material (0024) by using a shield that surrounds sides of the nozzle element (element 202, Figure 2A and 0032). Weiss further teaches a system comprising a nozzle positioned above a substrate to be coated (element 102, Figure 2A), the nozzle for jetting a UV-curable material onto a substrate, in a system where a UV light source is positioned next to the nozzle and also placed above the substrate (see Figure 1), and a shield around the nozzle as a protecting element for the nozzle to protect from irradiation with the UV light (element 202, Figure 2A). Weiss teaches repeating the act of protecting and unprotecting the nozzle during the printing and exposing process (0029). Weiss teaches the shield aligned with the opening of the nozzle and the protecting and unprotecting being accomplished by moving a shutter plate to cover the opening of the shield and wherein regardless of the state of the shutter plate, the shutter system remains connected to the shield that surrounds the sides of the nozzles (Figures 2A-2B). Additionally, Weiss teaches the light source moving together with the nozzle and the light source can be moved by changing the angle of the light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodvarsson’s process by repeatedly protecting and unprotecting the nozzle from light with a shield including a moveable shutter during the step of curing with UV light from a movable light source using a system comprising a nozzle positioned above the substrate, a light source positioned above the substrate moving with the nozzle and the shield around the nozzle element for protecting it during UV curing as disclosed by Weiss. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of a shield protecting element and a system as disclosed by Weiss prevents the radiation during the curing step from curing the polymer material adjacent to the nozzle, thereby preventing clogging of the nozzle (see Weiss at abstract).
Second, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss fail to explicitly teach the first and second frequency is different. However, the jetting frequency and emitting frequency are result-effective variables as adjusting these frequencies will adjust the rate at which the polymer is applied and cured, thereby adjusting the efficiency of the process, as well as adjusting the size of the droplets that are supplied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range of a difference between the first and second frequency through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
VI. Regarding claim 38, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss make obvious claim 37 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach turning off the light source for a period of time from 0.001-10 seconds. However, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss teach a step of applying a second layer by jetting for 0.5-20 seconds followed by UV curing that layer (0099-0102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodvarsson in view of Weiss’ process by having the UV light off for the jetting time of 0.5-20 seconds (and note that this overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range). One would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid premature curing.
2. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodvarsson in view of Weiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamad et al. (“Inkjet printing of UV-curable adhesive and dielectric inks for microfluidic devices”).
Regarding claim 6, Bodvarsson in view of Weiss teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above) including the jetting by inkjet printing (see above), but fail to teach jetting at a frequency of 1-1000 Hz (1 Hz-1 kHz). However, Hamad teaches that it is conventional to inkjet print UV-curable polymer materials at a frequency of 1 kHz (2nd paragraph of column 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Hamad’s frequency of jetting for the generic jetting as disclosed in Bodvarsson in view of Weiss. One would have been motivated to make this substitution as one having ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a specific inkjet frequency for the generic disclosed inkjetting with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Hamad is teaching inkjet printing of similar UV-curable polymer materials), and the predictable result of providing an encapsulated component on a substrate by an inkjet printing and UV curing process.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11, 17 and 24-38 are pending.
Claims 1-11, 17 and 24-38 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
August 25, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights