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 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:
“a holding mechanism disposed on” in claim 1,
“a vibration suppression unit disposed at” in claim 1,
“a carry-in unit to convey” in claim 7,
“a carry-out unit to receive” in claim 7.
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 § 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 3 recites the limitation "the vibration suppression units disposed at both ends of the movable unit" in the second element of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is recommended that the applicant amend this claim such that it depends on claim 2, where the limitation is made, rather than claim 1.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, US 20130208036 A1, modified by Huang et al., US 6186609 B1 and Lorente Tejero et al., US 20230398795 A1.
Regarding claim 1,
Forrest teaches:
A printing apparatus (Abstract, "An OVJP apparatus and method for applying organic vapor or other flowable material to a substrate using a printing head mechanism", wherein OVJP is a form of printing, standing for “organic vapor jet printing”),
a printing head having a printing surface (Paragraph 0007, "The print head has a nozzle plate"),
a fixing unit connected to the printing head and having a fixing guide disposed along a first direction including the printing surface (Figure 1, Item 34; Paragraph 0013, "This is accomplished in part by using fixture 34 to support the nozzle plate 22”),
a vibration suppression unit disposed at the movable unit and holding the object to be printed along the second direction (Paragraph 0014, "To counteract the bias provided by springs 32, a gas cushion is formed between the nozzle plate 22 and substrate 14 that urges the nozzle plate away from the substrate by an amount dependent on the pressure level of the gas… this arrangement tends to balance the gas cushion pressure across the nozzle plate 22 so as to maintain an even separation distance D at all locations." In this instance, the springs and the gas cushion feed assembly outlets are the vibration suppression units, as in this embodiment they are used to maintain an even separation distance between the nozzle plate and substrate).
Forrest does not disclose:
a movable unit connected to the fixing unit, having a movable guide disposed along the first direction, and being movable with respect to the printing head along a second direction, the second direction intersecting with the first direction.
However, Huang et al. teaches a movable unit connected to an ink dispensing head which allows the head to move along a guide rail in a lateral direction, designated as the Y axis, and can itself be moved along a pair of guide rails second intersecting lateral direction, designated as the X axis (Figure 1, Items 40, 26, and 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forrest to include a movable unit having a movable guide disposed along the first direction, as taught by Huang. This would have been done to allow the user to operate the device by moving the head in both directions simultaneously (Huang at Column 4, Lines 59 through 61, “In practical use, the ink dispensing device 50 can be conveniently moved simultaneously in the X and Y directions”).
Modified Forrest further fails to disclose a holding mechanism disposed on the movable unit and holding an object to be printed along the first direction, the object to be printed being an object on which printing by the printing head is performed.
Lorente Tejero et al. teaches a media holder, analogous to the holding mechanism, which is coupled to the scan beam and holds the media along its edge (Paragraph 0027, "The apparatus 100 further comprises a media holder 150 to hold an edge of the media 140 to the platen 130…"; Paragraph 0031, "The second end of the media holder 150 is couplable to the scan beam 120")
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forrest to include a holding mechanism disposed on the movable unit and holding an object to be printed along the first direction, as taught by Lorente Tejero. This would have been done to inhibit the edge of the media from warping or bending upwards (Lorente Tejero et al. at Paragraph 0027, "The apparatus 100 further comprises a media holder 150 to hold an edge of the media 140 to the platen 130 and therefore inhibit an edge of the media 140 to warp or bend upwards.")
Regarding claim 2,
Forrest teaches:
the vibration suppression unit is disposed at both ends of the movable unit (In Figure 1, Items 42 and 32, the springs and the gas cushion feed assembly outlets, are placed in pairs on opposing ends of the print head assembly).
Regarding claim 6,
Forrest teaches:
the printing head is fixed to the fixing unit (Paragraph 0013, "This is accomplished in part by using fixture 34 to support the nozzle plate 22").
Regarding claim 8,
Forrest teaches:
the vibration suppression unit is disposed at an end of the movable unit (In Figure 1, Items 42 and 32, the springs and the gas cushion feed assembly outlets, are placed in pairs on opposing ends of the print head assembly).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach that the holding mechanism is movable from the front of the fixing guide and the movable guide to the fixing guide and the movable guide along a third direction, the third direction intersecting with each of the first direction and the second direction.
Regarding dependent claim 5, allowability is based on its dependency from claim 4.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a carry-in unit to convey an object to be printed to the movable unit, a carry-out unit to receive an object to be printing that has been conveyed by the movable unit, and that the movable unit carries, to a carry-out unit, the object to be printed that has been conveyed by a carry-in unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rami Alshoroogi whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853