DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 11/03/2008 without traverse of Group I, species I-1, claims 1-13 for further examination. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024 & 10/09/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-10 & 12-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levi et al. (US 2020/0062003 A1) hereinafter Levi (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Levi are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), comprising:
a support system defined in an XYZ coordinate system (see fig 2), wherein the XYZ coordinate system (see fig 2) comprises an X axis (see fig 2, longitudinal direction of beams 190, 192, 200), a Y axis (see fig 2, longitudinal direction of beams 150, 155), and a Z axis (see fig 2, orthogonal direction to the X axis & Y axis) that are all perpendicular to each other, wherein the X axis (see fig 2, longitudinal direction of beams 190, 192, 200) and the Y axis (see fig 2, longitudinal direction of beams 150, 155) define an XY plane (see fig 2), wherein the XY plane (see fig 2) is at a zero Z axis position (see fig 2), wherein the support system comprises a first bar (191+194+210) and a second bar (190+192+200) both running in an X direction (see fig 2) in the XY plane (see fig 2) ([0069]-[0075]; [0111]; [0114]; fig 2, 7, 10);
a traveling rod (150+155) connected to the first bar (191+194+210) and the second bar (190+192+200), wherein the traveling rod (150+155) is configured to travel in the X direction (see fig 2) ([0069]-[0075]; [0111]; [0114]; fig 2, 7, 10); and
a plurality of printheads (160) connected to the traveling rod (150+155), wherein the plurality of printheads (160) comprises a first printhead (any one of 160) and a second printhead (another one of 160), wherein the first printhead (any one of 160) and the second printhead (another one of 160) are configured to articulate independent of each other ([0069]-[0075]; [0111]; [0114]; [0147]-[0150]; fig 2, 7, 10-10B).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “having a substrate maximum X length and a substrate maximum Y length, wherein the traveling rod has a traveling rod Y length that is greater than the substrate maximum Y length, wherein the first bar has a first bar X length and the second bar has a second bar X length, wherein the first bar X length and the second bar X length are both greater than the substrate maximum X length”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Levi since Levi meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having a substrate maximum X length and a substrate maximum Y length, wherein the traveling rod has a traveling rod Y length that is greater than the substrate maximum Y length, wherein the first bar has a first bar X length and the second bar has a second bar X length, wherein the first bar X length and the second bar X length are both greater than the substrate maximum X length, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. 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 shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), further comprising: a substrate support configured to support a substrate capable of having a substrate maximum X length and a substrate maximum Y length, wherein the traveling rod (150+155) has a traveling rod Y length that is greater than the substrate maximum Y length, wherein the first bar (191+194+210) has a first bar X length and the second bar (190+192+200) has a second bar X length, wherein the first bar X length and the second bar X length are both greater than the substrate maximum X length ([0069]-[0075]; [0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “such that a substrate maximum Z position is less than the zero Z axis position”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Levi since Levi meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of such that a substrate maximum Z position is less than the zero Z axis position, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. 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 shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 3, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: the substrate support is configured to support the substrate capable of such that a substrate maximum Z position is less than the zero Z axis position (see fig 2) ([0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “the substrate maximum X length and the substrate maximum Y length”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Levi since Levi meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of such that the substrate maximum X length and the substrate maximum Y length, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. 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 shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 4, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: the plurality of printheads (160) are capable of providing a continuous coating of the substrate over the substrate maximum X length and the substrate maximum Y length in a single pass ([0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B).
As regards to claim 5, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: the plurality of printheads (160) comprise a first row of printheads (160) at a first X position (see fig 2) and a second row of printheads (160) at a second X position (see fig 2), wherein the first X position (see fig 2) and the second X position (see fig 2) have different positions (see fig 2) in the X direction (see fig 2) at any one time ([0069]-[0075]; [0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “to apply a first coating… to apply a second coating… wherein the second coating is different than the first coating”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Levi since Levi meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of applying a first coating and applying a second coating, wherein the second coating is different than the first coating, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. 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 shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 6, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: the first row of printheads (160) is capable of applying a first coating onto a substrate surface; and the second row of printheads (160) is capable of applying a second coating onto the substrate surface, wherein the second coating is capable of being different than the first coating ([0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0152]; [0157]-[0161]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-11J).
As regards to claim 7, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), further comprising: a Z length detector connected to the coating application system in a position over the substrate support, wherein the Z length detector is configured to determine a Z position of a substrate surface at an XY coordinate point ([0017]; [0069]-[0075]; [0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B).
As regards to claim 8, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), further comprising: a controller in communication with the first printhead (any one of 160) and the with the second printhead (another one of 160), wherein the controller is configured to control the articulation of the first printhead (any one of 160) and the articulation of the second printhead (another one of 160) such that the first printhead (any one of 160) and the second printhead (another one of 160) are about perpendicular to a substrate surface as the first printhead (any one of 160) and the second printhead (another one of 160) pass over the substrate surface ([0018]; [0060]; [0069]-[0075]; [0079]; [0083]-[0097]; [0108]; [0111]; [0114]; [0118]; [0128]; [0134]; [0136]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B; 5-6, 13).
As regards to claim 9, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: the controller comprises a memory configured to store a substrate map, wherein the substrate map comprises a substrate Z position at a plurality of XY coordinate points ([0018]; [0060]; [0069]-[0075]; [0079]; [0083]-[0097]; [0108]; [0111]; [0114]; [0118]; [0128]; [0134]; [0136]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B; 5-6, 13).
As regards to claim 10, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: the first printhead (any one of 160) is connected to the traveling rod (150+155) through a first adjustable support (see fig 10B), the second printhead (another one of 160) is connected to the traveling rod (150+155) through a second adjustable support (see fig 10B), wherein the first adjustable support (see fig 10B) is configured to vary a first printhead Z position (see fig 2, 10B), and the second adjustable support (see fig 10B) is configured to vary a second printhead Z position (see fig 2, 10B) independent of the first printhead Z position (see fig 2, 10B) ([0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0152]; [0157]-[0161]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-11J).
As regards to claim 12, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: each of the plurality of printheads (160) are configured to articulate independent of every other one of the plurality of printheads (160) ([0083]-[0097]; [0111]; [0114]; [0142]-[0152]; [0157]-[0161]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-11J).
As regards to claim 13, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), wherein: each of the plurality of printheads (160) is connected to the traveling rod (150+155) by an adjustable support (see fig 10B) such that the coating application system comprises a plurality of adjustable supports (see fig 10B), and wherein a controller is in communication with each of the plurality of adjustable supports (see fig 10B), wherein the controller is configured to adjust a Z position (see fig 2, 10B) of each of the plurality of printheads (160) independent of every other one of the plurality of printheads (160) ([0018]; [0060]; [0069]-[0075]; [0079]; [0083]-[0097]; [0108]; [0111]; [0114]; [0118]; [0128]; [0134]; [0136]; [0142]-[0150]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B; 5-6, 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi as applied to claim 10 above.
As regards to claim 11, Levi discloses a coating application system (abs; fig 2), further comprising: a controller in communication with the first adjustable support (see fig 10B) and with the second adjustable support (see fig 10B), wherein the controller is configured to control an extension of the first adjustable support (see fig 10B) to adjust the first printhead Z position (see fig 2, 10B), the controller is configured to control an extension of the second adjustable support (see fig 10B) to adjust the second printhead Z position (see fig 2, 10B) independent of the first printhead Z position (see fig 2, 10B), and wherein the controller is configured to maintain a print distance that can be measured in centimeters for each of the first printhead (any one of 160) and the second printhead (another one of 160), wherein the print distance is individually defined by a distance between each of the plurality of printheads (160) and a substrate surface ([0018]; [0060]; [0069]-[0075]; [0079]; [0083]-[0097]; [0108]; [0111]; [0114]; [0118]; [0128]; [0134]; [0136]; [0142]-[0152]; [0157]-[0161]; fig 2-5B, 7, 9-10B; 5-6, 13), however Koda does not disclose about 0.1 to about 3 centimeters.
Although Levi does not explicitly disclose the claimed distance, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Levi to have the distance recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the distance (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the print distance.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
