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.
Claims 11-13 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.
Regarding claim 11, the final limitation does not make grammatical sense. Furthermore, since there is not a period at the end of the claim, it appears as though the claim is incomplete, leaving doubt as to what Applicant intends to claim. For purposes of Examination, it will be assumed that the final line requires the printing device to have plural shafts holding the arc table, and that the arc table moves horizontally and vertically.
Further regarding claim 12 recites the limitation "the shaft" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected based upon its dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 7997195). Regarding claim 11, Seo et al. disclose “a printing device (item 100) comprising: a substrate table having a flat surface (item 10); an arc table having a curved portion (item 110); and a controller (item 120), wherein the controller moves the arc table in a state in which the curved portion holding ink faces the substrate table holding a target and causes the arc table to contact the target (Figure 7d), wherein plural shafts holding the arc table to move horizontally and vertically (Figure 7d: Examiner notes that because the two shafts are operated separately and since the surface is arcuate, the surface of the table moves both horizontally and vertically).”
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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. in view of Son et al. (US2016/0340527). Regarding claim 5, Seo et al. disclose “a printing method (title) comprising: an application step of applying ink to an arc table (Figure 7c); a transfer step of transferring the ink remaining on the arc table onto a target on a substrate table (Figure 7d), wherein in the transfer step, the arc table is swung without moving the substrate table (Figure 7d), wherein the swing is along a trochoid curve (Figure 7d).” Seo et al. fail to disclose “a receiving step of receiving part of the ink by a printing plate on a printing plate table by contact between the ink on the arc table and the printing plate.” Essentially, Seo et al. disclose a regular gravure offset printing method. Son et al. disclose that reverse offset printing forms precisely fine patterns (paragraph 6, Figure 1 which shows the reverse offset method). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Seo et al. to be a reverse offset method in order to form precisely fine patterns. When modifying the method of Seo et al. to be a reverse offset method, the ink would be uniformly applied to the curved portion of the arc table, and then “a receiving step of receiving part of the ink by a printing plate on a printing plate table by contact between the ink on the arc table and the printing plate” before the final step of “transferring the ink remaining on the arc table onto a target on a substrate table.” Regarding claim 8, Seo et al. further disclose “wherein the swing is along a trochoid curve (Figure 7d) with a corrected parameter, and the corrected parameter is set such that a lowest surface of the arc table is at a certain height (Figure 7d).”
Examiner notes that the arc table of Seo et al. moves at a certain height, and therefore the limitations are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5-8 are not persuasive. Claim 5 does not require the shaft to move along a trochoid curve, only that the table is swung along a trochoid curve, which Examiner maintains the apparatus of Seo et al. accomplishes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853