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.
Claims 1-18 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 “base film” in claims 1-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “base film” 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. Applicant’s claims and/or specification do not detail how the claimed “base film” is formed. The Examiner assumes below that the base film is identical in function to prior art “substrate” as the principal structural support when passing through roller stations.
Claims 8 and 9 require a “insulating” film. The claims do not specify what type of insulation. Thermal or electrical? The prior art is applied based on a thermal insulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 15, 17, and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veres; Janos et al. (US 20150376768 A1). Veres teaches a coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]), comprising: a coating-resistance pattern unit (225+255; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048], [0053]-Applicant’s 210) configured to form a pattern composed of a coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) on a partial area of a surface of a base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230), the coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) being used to restrict metal vapor (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]; claim 3) from forming a coating; and a coating unit (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) configured to apply the metal vapor (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]; claim 3) to the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with the pattern, so as to form a metal coating (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) on the area of the surface of the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) where the coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) is not provided, as claimed by claim 1. With respect to the chemical/physical functionality claimed for the “coating-resistance substance”, it has been held that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) MPEP 2112.01).
Veres further teaches:
The coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 1, wherein the coating-resistance pattern unit (225+255; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048], [0053]-Applicant’s 210) comprises: a heating roller (255; Figure 2; [0053]-Applicant’s 211) configured to heat the coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]); and a pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212) with the pattern provided on the surface to print the heated coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) on the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) in a shape of the pattern when the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) passes over the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212), so as to form the pattern on the partial area of the surface of the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230), as claimed by claim 2
The coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 2, wherein the coating-resistance pattern unit (225+255; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048], [0053]-Applicant’s 210) further comprises: a bottom roller (220; Figure 2-Applicant’s 213) arranged side by side with the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212) on two sides of the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230), where when the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) passes between the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212) and the bottom roller (220; Figure 2-Applicant’s 213), the coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) on the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212) is formed on the partial area of the surface of the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) in the shape of the pattern under a pressure between the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212) and the bottom roller (220; Figure 2-Applicant’s 213), as claimed by claim 3
The coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 2, wherein the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212) is a roller made of rubber (“any black elastomeric material such as NBR (nitride) or EPDM can be used in addition to silicone or fluorosilicone materials as long as the surface texture is optimized.”; [0051]), as claimed by claim 5
The coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 1, wherein the coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) is silicone oil, as claimed by claim 15
The coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 1, wherein the base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) is a polyethylene terephthalate PET film, as claimed by claim 17. Applicant’s claim is an intended use claim requirement for the pending apparatus claims because the base film composition/chemical identity is not considered part of the apparatus. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use 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 (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
The coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 1, wherein the metal vapor (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]; claim 3) is copper vapor or aluminum vapor, as claimed by claim 18. As above, Applicant’s claim is an intended use claim requirement for the pending apparatus claims because the vapor chemical is not considered part of the apparatus. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use 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 (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veres; Janos et al. (US 20150376768 A1) in view of Yializis; Angelo et al. (US 5731948 A). Veres is discussed above. Veres does not teach Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 2, wherein Veres’s coating-resistance pattern unit (225+255; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048], [0053]-Applicant’s 210) further comprises: an anilox roller (Applicant’s 214) arranged between Veres’s heating roller (255; Figure 2; [0053]-Applicant’s 211) and Veres’s pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212), where the surface of the anilox roller (Applicant’s 214) is provided with a plurality of pits, the pits are used to store Veres’s heated coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]), and the anilox roller (Applicant’s 214) is used to transfer Veres’s stored heated coating-resistance substance (“control/release agent”-silicone oil; [0045]-[0047]-Applicant’s ex. “silicon oil”; [0031], [0074]) to the pattern roller (225; Figure 2-[0047]-[0048]-Applicant’s 212), as claimed by claim 4
Yializis also teaches a drum deposition apparatus (Figure 2) of capacitors (abstract) including describing an anilox roller with grooves used in conventional gravure printing (column 9; line 61-column 10; line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Veres to add Yializis anilox roller as taught by Yializis.
Motivation for Veres to add Yializis anilox roller as taught by Yializis is to “minimize metal deposition” in areas not intended for circuitry as taught by Yializis (column 9; lines 54-59).
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veres; Janos et al. (US 20150376768 A1) in view of Kuehnle; Manfred R. (US 3884787 A). Veres is discussed above. Veres further teaches Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 7, wherein Veres’s coating unit (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) comprises a vacuum (claim 3) coating mechanism configured to deliver metal vapor (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]; claim 3) toward Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) – claim 14
Veres does not teach a cooling unit as a cooling drum. As a result, Veres does not teach:
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 1, further comprising: a cooling unit configured to cool Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with Veres’s pattern after Veres’s pattern is formed on Veres’s partial area of Veres’s surface of Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230), as claimed by claim 6
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 6, wherein the cooling unit comprises: a cold drum configured to transfer and cool Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with Veres’s pattern, where the cold drum is provided as a hollow structure, and the hollow structure contains a cooling liquid to cool Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with Veres’s pattern in a process of circulation, as claimed by claim 7
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 7, wherein the surface of the cold drum is coated with an insulating material, as claimed by claim 8
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 8, wherein a thickness of the insulating material is 30µm – 200µm, as claimed by claim 9
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 7, wherein the cooling unit further comprises: a bias roller arranged downstream of the cold drum in Veres’s transferring direction of Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) to adsorb Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with Veres’s pattern to Veres’s surface of the cold drum, as claimed by claim 10
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 10, wherein the cold drum is grounded and the bias roller is connected to a negative voltage, as claimed by claim 11
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 7, wherein Veres’s cooling unit further comprises: a gas cooling tube including a heat-conducting medium which is introduced by Veres’s gas cooling tube through a gas port to a position between Veres’s cold drum and Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with Veres’s pattern, so that Veres’s heat-conducting medium cools Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) with Veres’s pattern, as claimed by claim 12
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 12, wherein Veres’s heat-conducting medium is an inert gas, as claimed by claim 13
Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 7, wherein Veres’s coating unit (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) comprises a vacuum coating mechanism configured to deliver metal vapor (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]; claim 3) toward Veres’s base film (215-substrate; Figure 2; [0048]-Applicant’s 230) on the cold drum, as claimed by claim 14
Kuehnle also teaches a substrate web (70; Figure 3) deposition apparatus (Figure 3) including:
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 1, further comprising: a cooling unit (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) configured to cool Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230) - claim 6
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 6, wherein the cooling unit (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) comprises: a cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) configured to transfer and cool Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230), where the cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) is provided as a hollow structure (Figure 3), and the hollow structure (Figure 3) contains a cooling liquid (126,128; Figure 3) to cool Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230) - claim 7
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 7, wherein the surface of the cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) is coated with an insulating material (220; Figure 5; column 14; lines 47-65), as claimed by claim 8
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 7, wherein the cooling unit (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) further comprises: a bias roller (142; Figure 3) arranged downstream of Kuehnle’s cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) in Kuehnle’s transferring direction of Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 2-Applicant’s 230) to adsorb Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 2-Applicant’s 230) to Kuehnle’s surface of Kuehnle’s cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) - claim 10
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 10, wherein the cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) is grounded (127) and the bias roller (142; Figure 3) is connected to a negative voltage (154; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 11. Kuehnle describes two electrical connections 127; Figure 3 and Kuehnle’s bias roller (142; Figure 3) must be connected to a negative voltage (154; Figure 3) for the roller to function.
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2,3) according to claim 7, wherein Kuehnle’s cooling unit (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) further comprises: a gas cooling tube (126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) including a heat-conducting medium which is introduced by Kuehnle’s gas cooling tube (126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) through a gas port to a position between Kuehnle’s cold drum (118; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) and Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230), so that Kuehnle’s heat-conducting medium cools Kuehnle’s base film (70; Figure 3-Applicant’s 230) – claim 12. The above and below italicized claim text are considered intended use claim requirements in the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use 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 (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Kuehnle’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 12, wherein Kuehnle’s heat-conducting medium (“coolant”; Figure 3) is an inert gas, as claimed by claim 13
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Veres to add Kuehnle’s coated cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) at optimized insulating material (220; Figure 5; column 14; lines 47-65) thickness and drum bias.
Motivation for Veres to add Kuehnle’s coated cold drum (118+126+128; Figure 3; column 10; line 62-column 11; line 5) at optimized insulating material (220; Figure 5; column 14; lines 47-65) thickness and drum bias is for “best results” as taught by Kuehnle (column 11; lines 5-23).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veres; Janos et al. (US 20150376768 A1) in view of Uchida; Yozo et al. (US 20140079872 A1). Veres does not teach Veres’s coating apparatus (Figure 2; [0047]-[0048]) according to claim 1, wherein Veres’s thickness of Veres’s metal coating (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) is 1µm – 3µm. Uchida also teaches a web coating apparatus (Figure 3) including a film deposition thickness of “several microns (preferably 1.5µm)” ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Veres to optimize Veres’s metal coating (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) thickness as taught by Uchida.
Motivation for Veres to optimize Veres’s metal coating (250; Figure 2-[0042],[0044],[0057],[0062]-Applicant’s 220) thickness as taught by Uchida is for the desired application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Web coating apparatus similar to the claimed invention include US 20230399736 A1; US 20180186955 A1; US 20120274004 A1; US 20210193996 A1; US 10116000 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights