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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to a dispensing device;
II. Claims 21-32, drawn to a discharge device;
III. Claims 33-38, drawn to a method of manufacturing a display panel;
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as in coating a car.
Inventions II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as in coating a car.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination claim 1 does not require insulation part. The subcombination has separate utility such as for spraying a powder.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During conversation with Jenny Sung on July 27, 2026, an election of group II claims 21-32 was made without traverse. Affirmation of this election should be in the written response to this action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one direction” in claims 24 and 31 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: “one direction” should be “extending direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
One information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this application with one US patent document and 5 foreign patent documents. Applicant is reminded of the requirements under 37 CFR 1.56(a) for each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application having a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(a) section.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “drive part”, “discharge part”, and “insulation part” in claim 21.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160030959 A1 to Moon et al (hereinafter Moon) and US Pat. Pub. No. 201200313329 A1 to Sakakibara et al (hereinafter Sakakibara).
Regarding claim 21, Moon teaches discharge device comprising:
a drive part (430) ;
a discharge part (400) disposed under the drive part and configured to discharge ink according to driving power of the drive part; and an insulation part (630) disposed between the drive part (430) and the discharge part (400), wherein the drive part, the discharge part, and the insulation part are arranged in an extending direction. (See Moon, Abstract, paragraphs 10-13, 48, 56-59, 75, 80-81, 89-90, 95-96, and 103.)
Moon does not explicitly teach a thickness of the insulation part in the extending direction is smaller than a width of the insulation part in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction.
Sakakibara is directed to a coating apparatus.
Sakakibara teaches a thickness of the insulation part in the extending direction is smaller than a width of the insulation part in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a thickness of the insulation part in the extending direction is smaller than a width of the insulation part in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electricity applied to the discharge head to be isolated from the motor enabling the coating apparatus to function. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Regarding claim 22, Moon teaches a through-hole in a center region of the insulation part extending in the extending direction. (See Moon, Abstract, paragraphs 11-13, 48, 56-59, 75, 78-79, and Fig. 5.)
Regarding claim 23, Moon teaches the insulation part comprises: a first insulation part (630); and a second insulation part (640) disposed on the first insulation part and coupled to the first insulation part, and wherein the thickness and the width of the insulation part are measured in a state where the first and second insulation parts are coupled to each other. (See Moon, Abstract, paragraphs 11-13, 48, 56-59, 75, 78-79, and Fig. 5.)
Regarding claim 24, Moon does not explicitly teach in the one direction, a first hole passing through a center portion of the first insulation part is defined in the first insulation part, and a second hole passing through a center portion of the second insulation part is defined in the second insulation part.
Sakakibara teaches the one direction, a first hole passing through a center portion of the first insulation part is defined in the first insulation part, and a second hole passing through a center portion of the second insulation part is defined in the second insulation part. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the one direction, a first hole passing through a center portion of the first insulation part is defined in the first insulation part, and a second hole passing through a center portion of the second insulation part is defined in the second insulation part, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electricity applied to the discharge head to be isolated from the motor enabling the coating apparatus to function. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Regarding claim 25, Moon does not explicitly teach a driving shaft disposed between the drive part and the discharge part to pass through the first hole and the second hole; and a rotor disposed between the driving shaft and the discharge part.
Sakakibara teaches a driving shaft disposed between the drive part and the discharge part to pass through the first hole and the second hole; and a rotor disposed between the driving shaft and the discharge part. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a driving shaft disposed between the drive part and the discharge part to pass through the first hole and the second hole; and a rotor disposed between the driving shaft and the discharge part, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electricity applied to the discharge head to be isolated from the motor enabling the coating apparatus to function. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Regarding claim 26, Moon teaches an upper surface of the first insulation part (630), facing the second insulation part (640), comprises: a plurality of first protruding parts (protrusions surrounding 640 in fig. 5) disposed along an outer edge of the first insulation part, and protruding toward the second insulation part (640) ; and a plurality of first grooves (area which receives 640 in Fig. 5) defined between the first protruding parts along the outer edge of the first insulation part. (See Moon, Abstract, paragraphs 11-13, 48, 56-59, 75, 78-79, and Fig. 5.)
Regarding claim 27, Moon does not explicitly teach a lower surface of the second insulation part, facing the first insulation part, comprises: a plurality of second protruding parts disposed along an outer edge of the second insulation part and protruding toward the first insulation part; and a plurality of second grooves defined between the second protruding parts along the outer edge of the second insulation part.
Sakakibara is directed to a coating apparatus.
Sakakibara teaches a lower surface of the second insulation part (143), facing the first insulation part (153), comprises: a plurality of second protruding parts disposed along an outer edge of the second insulation part and protruding toward the first insulation part; and a plurality of second grooves defined between the second protruding parts along the outer edge of the second insulation part. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lower surface of the second insulation part, facing the first insulation part, comprises: a plurality of second protruding parts disposed along an outer edge of the second insulation part and protruding toward the first insulation part; and a plurality of second grooves defined between the second protruding parts along the outer edge of the second insulation part, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electricity applied to the discharge head to be isolated from the motor enabling the coating apparatus to function. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Regarding claim 28, Moon does not explicitly teach the first protruding parts face the second grooves, and the second protruding parts face the first grooves.
Sakakibara is directed to a coating apparatus.
Sakakibara teaches the first protruding parts face the second grooves, and the second protruding parts face the first grooves. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first protruding parts face the second grooves, and the second protruding parts face the first grooves, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electricity applied to the discharge head to be isolated from the motor enabling the coating apparatus to function. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Regarding claim 29, Moon does not explicitly teach the drive part comprises a motor configured to rotate about a rotation axis parallel to the one direction
Sakakibara teaches the drive part comprises a motor (130 AC servomotor) configured to rotate about a rotation axis parallel to the one direction. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 1, 6-11, 14, 16, 28, and 46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the drive part comprises a motor configured to rotate about a rotation axis parallel to the one direction, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electric motor to be insulated from the rotary atomizing head or the speed increasing device. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Regarding claim 30, Moon does not explicitly teach a conductive part that is adjacent to the discharge part and connected to receive a voltage.
Sakakibara teaches a conductive part (125) that is adjacent to the discharge part (120) and connected to receive a voltage. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 3, 6-11, 27, 46, 48, 51-52, 57, 59-60, 65-66, and 72-75.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conductive part that is adjacent to the discharge part and connected to receive a voltage, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the charged atomized coating to be efficiently coated on the vehicle body. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 3, 6-11, 27, 46, 48, 51-52, 57, 59-60, 65-66, and 72-75.)
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20160030959 A1 to Moon et al (hereinafter Moon) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201200313329 A1 to Sakakibara et al (hereinafter Sakakibara) as applied to claim 30 in view of US Pat. Num. 5,922,131 A1 to Haas et al (hereinafter Haas) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150299842 A1 to Hashimoto et al (hereinafter Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 31, Moon does not explicitly teach the conductive part receives a voltage of about 1 kv to about 4 kv, and a stage, which is disposed under the discharge part and on which a display panel is placed, is grounded.
Haas is directed to an electrostatic spray nozzle.
Haas teaches the conductive part receives a voltage of about 1 kv to about 4 kv, and a stage, which is disposed under the discharge part and on which a display panel is placed, is grounded. (See Haas, Abstract, Figs. 1-4B, and col. 3, lines 60-66 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the conductive part receives a voltage of about 1 kv to about 4 kv, and a stage, which is disposed under the discharge part and on which a display panel is placed, is grounded, because Haas teaches this range of voltage is known for electrostatic coating. (See Haas, Abstract, Figs. 1-4B, and col. 3, lines 60-66 .)
Regarding claim 31, Moon does not explicitly teach a stage, which is disposed under the discharge part and on which a display panel is placed, is grounded.
Hashimoto is directed to a charged particle device
Hashimoto teaches a stage (111), which is disposed under the discharge part and on which a substrate is placed, is grounded. (See Hashimoto, Abstract, Figs. 1-20, and paragraph 63 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stage, which is disposed under the discharge part and on which a display panel is placed, is grounded, because Hashimoto teaches this structure allows grounding to take place. (See Hashimoto, Abstract, Figs. 1-20, and paragraph 63 .)
Regarding claim 32, Moon does not explicitly teach the insulation part blocks current flowing from the conductive part to the drive part.
Sakakibara teaches the insulation part blocks current flowing from the conductive part to the drive part. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the insulation part blocks current flowing from the conductive part to the drive part, because Sakakibara teaches this structure allows the electricity applied to the discharge head to be isolated from the motor enabling the coating apparatus to function. (See Sakakibara, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 6-12, 14-16, 57-65.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, 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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights