DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on December 9, 2025 was received. Claims 21 and 26 were amended. Claims 29-35 appear to be canceled as the text of the claims are missing.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued October 2, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 29-35 have the following informalities: The text of the claim are removed, but have a status of withdrawn. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 moving assembly in claim 21
control device in claim 21;
rotating assembly in claim 24;
second moving assembly in claim 24.
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.
Currently applicants response filed December 9, 2025, showed glue spraying assembly in claim 21 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Other are arguments do not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function in the above indicated claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 21-28 are withdrawn because independent claim 21 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura on claims 21-25 and 28 are withdrawn because independent claim 21 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura on claims 26-27 are withdrawn because independent claim 21 has been amended.
Please consider the following.
Claims 21-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2003/0142167) in view of Yi (US 2015/0190832).
In regards to claim 21, Nakamura teaches a liquid drop ejecting apparatus comprising:
an ink jet head (22, glue spraying assembly) comprising a nozzle array (28, glue spraying panel) having a plurality nozzles (27, parallel spraying holes rows) which are individually controlled, where the ink jet head ejects ink (fig. 9-11; para. 94, 96-98, 10);
a main scanning driving apparatus (19, first moving assembly) is connected to the ink jet head, the main scanning driving apparatus moves the ink jet head in a straight line in a horizontal direction (fig. 9; para. 94-95, 103);
a table (49, working table) is located below the ink jet head, the table provide a surface for a motherboard (12) (fig. 9; para. 103, 105, 119);
an controlling apparatus (24, control device) is connected to the ink jet head and the main scanning driving apparatus and capable of controlling the ink jet head to eject ink onto the motherboard while moving horizontally and having the ink jet head being above the motherboard by using a Z-motor-48 to move the ink jet head vertically and capable of the process of maintaining the height during the horizontal movement (fig. 8, 14; para. 41, 102, 109).
Nakamura does not explicitly teach the use of UV glue liquid.
However, the particular type of substrate or processing materials used is a process limitation rather than an apparatus limitation, and the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
Furthermore, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
As Nakamura teaches the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable supplying UV glue liquid to the ink jet head so that it is ejected onto the board.
Further, the ink jet head of Nakamura is capable of discharging the UV glue liquid or equivalents such as resin, as evidenced by Lan- 20200282659-para. 87; Suzuki-20170280567-para. 14, 45, 57; Nishihara-20090102903-para. 132.
Nakamura does not explicitly teach a curing light source is fixed to the glue spraying assembly.
However, Yi teaches thin film forming apparatus (1002) comprising a first nozzle unit-101, a second nozzle unit-201, a first light-irradiating unit-111, and a second light-irradiating unit-211. Yi teaches the light-irradiating units are arranged on either side of the nozzle units and the light-irradiating unit emit a wavelength that cures the dispensed material (fig. 3-4; para. 62, 66-67, 72-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the curing light sources positioned on either side of the nozzles unit of Yi onto the ink jet head of Nakamura because Yi teaches it will provide forming of an organic thin film with reduced time (para. 9).
In regards to claim 22, Nakamura and Yi as discussed, where Nakamura teaches the controlling apparatus comprises a central processing unit/CPU (69) for performing a calculating operation, such as dotting starting position and nozzle injection control (fig. 14; para. 109, 112-113).
In regards to claim 23, Nakamura and Yi as discussed, where Nakamura teaches the ink jet head comprises piezoelectric element (41) for the nozzles (27) (fig. 12; para. 100-101, 117).
In regards to claim 24, Nakamura and Yi as discussed, where Nakamura teaches a theta motor-51 which rotates and supports the table about a vertical axis (fig. 9; para. 103, 120).
In regards to claim 25, Nakamura and Yi as discussed, where Nakamura teaches a sub-scanning driving apparatus (21, second moving assembly) on which the theta motor-51 is arranged and moved in a second horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (fig. 8; para. 94, 104, 110).
In regards to claim 28, Nakamura and Yi as discussed, where Nakamura teaches a head camera (81, positioning portion) which provides information to determine the starting position for the ink jet head and positions the boards accordingly (fig. 8-9; para. 108, 120-124).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Yi as applied to claims 21-25 and 28 above, and further in view of Sugisawa (US 2024/0124729).
In regards to claim 26-27, Nakamura and Yi as discussed, where Yi teaches thin film forming apparatus (1002) comprising a first nozzle unit-101, a second nozzle unit-201, a first light-irradiating unit-111, and a second light-irradiating unit-211. Yi teaches the light-irradiating units are arranged on either side of the nozzle units and the light-irradiating unit emit a wavelength that cures the dispensed material (fig. 3-4; para. 62, 66-67, 72-73).
Nakamura and Yi do not explicitly teach the curing light source is an LED lamp with a wavelength of 365-395 nm.
However, Sugisawa teaches the use of an ink jet adhesive that is irradiate with light at a wavelength of 365-nm (para. 133, 139, 142, 145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the wavelength of 365-nm of Sugisawa onto the curing light sources of Nakamura and Yi because Sugisawa teaches it will provide a cured product that is favorable (para. 133).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
The inkjet head of Nakamura cannot dispense PCBA packaging UV glue, because it is designed for low-viscosity ink. The UV glue liquid in the application has high viscosity that requires a completely different structure to spray.
The inkjet head of Nakamura can rotate, shake, and move vertically, which is different from the present application's "in the glue spraying process, the glue spraying assembly is not changed in height position during movement". This is a key structural difference.
Yi cannot provide technical insights into setting the new feature "the glue spraying assembly is further fixedly provided with a curing light source", because the light- irradiating unit of Yi cannot be applied to mobile nozzles.
There is no motivation to apply Sugisawa's wavelength to Yi's apparatus and then transplant Yi's structure into the inkjet head of Nakamura.
Sugisawa is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Nakamura ink jet head is capable discharging the claimed UV glue liquid. This is evidenced by Lan- 20200282659-para. 87; Suzuki-20170280567-para. 14, 45, 57; Nishihara-20090102903-para. 132. It is noted the argued viscosity, droplet formation mechanism, nozzle diameter, elements which provide driving pressure or flow control are not recited in the claim. The claim simply a glue spraying panel on which a plurality of parallel spraying hole rows are distributed; each spraying hole row has a plurality of spraying holes, where the term of glue does not add structure. These elements are found in Nakamura. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that "in the glue spraying process, the glue spraying assembly is not changed in height position during movement", 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. Nakamura clearly teaches the main scanning driving apparatus (19) is connected to the ink jet head, where moving along the X guide rail-52 of the main scanning driving apparatus provides movement to the ink jet head in a straight line in a horizontal direction (fig. 9; para. 94-95, 103).
In response to applicant's argument that the light- irradiating unit of Yi cannot be applied to mobile nozzles, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The combination of Nakamura and Yi provides as discussed above, incorporates the curing light sources of Yi on to the movable ink jet head of Nakamura, thereby providing the claimed the glue spraying assembly is further fixedly provided with a curing light source, that is movable.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation that is provided by Sugisawa is it will provide a cured product that is favorable (para. 133) and Yi teaches it will provide forming of an organic thin film with reduced time (para. 9).
Yi has foreign application priority data of March 26, 2021 which is before applications effective fielding date of November 18, 2021.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717