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 .
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.
Claim 27-41 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.
The term “varying geometries” in claims 27 and 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “varying geometries” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim fails to specify which geometric variations are being claimed (e.g. changes in length, curvature, or thickness) or provide any objective standard for determine whether a given geometry would fall within or outside the scope of the term. .
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the coating pattern" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 27, the limitation of “setting the operating parameters associated with the selected coating pattern delimiting mask” is vague. The claim does not identify which parameters are associated with the mask (e.g. position of the mask, flow rate of supply material, position of supply material” or any criteria for determining association. It is unclear what is encompassed by “operating parameters associated with the selected mask.” It is also unclear what the operating parameters are associated with (e.g. positioning device or coating device, or particle generator).
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the established particle size generation parameters" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the suspended liquid coating" in lines 12, 136 and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "this particle size" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what particle size the claim is referring to, the measured size or established range or a modified size.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the coated supply material" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the suspended microparticle cloud" in claims 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 28-37 and 39-41 are included since they depend from independent claims 27 and 38.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Droski (US 6811806) discloses a method for applying liquid coatings to sheet material using a spray or atomizing nozzle (see abstract, col. 2, lines 51-54). Droski discloses the use of continuous sheets (See 228 of Figures). The spray is applied over the entire surface of the sheet.
Hopf et al. (US 2721152) discloses a process for spraying laminated sheets with a slurry through a stencil to from a circuit pattern (see example 4).
Montaster et al. (US 20070299561) discloses a feedback mechanism for nozzles and nebulizers. Montaster et al. states droplet size and velocity distributions are important factors when determining the quality of an aerosol (see 0007). The particle size can be measured using optical instruments and CCDs (see 0022).
Ashgriz (US 8988681) discloses a spray droplet sizer. The device has a laser where the droplets that pass through the laser are measured. The size of the droplets are determined by counting the number of droplets and measuring the volume of the collected droplets (see abstract).
Kageyama (US 20150061458) discloses spraying a material through a mask onto a substrate where the size of the liquid drops in the spray mist is determined based on the flow rate of the spray, dielectric constant of the solution and temperature (see 0112).
The prior art fails to teach or suggest the combination of coating laminated strips, single or stacked laminated sheets having various geometries by placing a mask based on the geometry of the final product where the mask is placed, pressurizing a particle generating chamber, generating a particle of the liquid coating and measuring the size of the liquid coating, determining if the particle size is within range and modifying or releasing the particle to deposit onto the supply material as claimed. As to claim 38, the prior art fails to teach the claimed apparatus where the particle is measured inside the particle generating chamber as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1715
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights