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 .
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYATO (JP2015-199986A, see also machine translation) in view of IMAE (JP 2005146370 A, see also machine translation) and APPLIED MATERIALS (KR 10-1741447, from IDS, see also machine translation, henceforth named as “APPLIED”).
Re 1, HAYATO teaches of an ultra-thin lithium foil manufacturing apparatus using molten metal droplet spraying (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a crucible (see melting unit 11 with heating mechanism 12) configured to apply heat to molten metal supplied from an external source to maintain a molten state of metal;
PNG
media_image1.png
252
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a nozzle portion (nozzle 14) installed at one end of the crucible to eject the molten metal;
a pressurizing pipe (see pressure application unit 13, that can be a compressor) coupled to the crucible to transmit a pressurizing force to the molten metal, wherein
HAYATO does not teach of: a piezoelectric transducer installed at the other end of the crucible to transmit an excitation force to the molten metal in the crucible at a frequency set by a function generator; and
Regarding the piezoelectric transducer, IMAE teaches of formation in the battery arts for lithium-ion battery manufacturing, and teaching of forming molten metal droplet (see Fig. 1 below), comprising:
a crucible (1) configured to apply heat to molten metal supplied from an external source to maintain a molten state of metal (melt 8);
PNG
media_image2.png
197
175
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a nozzle portion (orifice 7) installed at one end of the crucible to eject the molten metal;
a piezoelectric transducer (piezoelectric element 4 and vibrating bar 5) installed at the other end of the crucible to transmit an excitation force to the molten metal in the crucible at a frequency set by a function generator; and
a pressurizing pipe (gas inlet 3 for pressurized gas) coupled to the crucible to transmit a pressurizing force to the molten metal.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the crucible of HAYATO with the piezoelectric transducer of IMAE that allows to transmit an excitation force to the molten metal, and thus “Due to the transmission of this vibration, the melt ejected from the orifice 7 is divided into uniform droplets.” (see page 4 of translation).
Regarding the crucible and the nozzle portion move within a set range while the molten metal is ejected through the nozzle portion.
Whereupon, the claimed teaching of the movement of the crucible and nozzle portion is noted as seen in the APPLIED reference. It is noted that in the HAYATO reference instead teaches of the movement of the target area instead, see Fig. 1. Whereupon, the APPLIED reference teaches of the dispenser 406 (which corresponds to the claimed crucible) along with a nozzle 420, that can be moved within a set range while the molten material is ejected, see Figs. 3-4, see teaching of the movement along the positioning via actuator across the chamber 402 (see page 10 of APPLIED translation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the crucible and nozzle of the modified HAYATO with the additional movement as taught by APPLIED allowing for dispensing across a film over all or a substantial portion of the substrate disposed on the substrate support 404 (see page 10 of APPLIED translation)
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the crucible comprises:
Wherein the HAYATO reference teaches of the crucible comprises:
at least one or more heaters (see heating mechanism 12, sheath heater);
a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the molten metal or an outer surface of the crucible (heating mechanism 12 being controlled via heating control device 90).
HAYATO does not teach of a vibrating shaft configured to vibrate due to the excitation force transmitted from the piezoelectric transducer.
Wherein IMAE teaches of the crucible comprises:
at least one or more heaters (heater 2);
a temperature sensor (thermocouple 6) configured to measure a temperature of the molten metal or an outer surface of the crucible; and
a vibrating shaft (vibrating bar 5) configured to vibrate due to the excitation force transmitted from the piezoelectric transducer (piezoelectric element 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the crucible of HAYATO with the vibrating shaft of IMAE that allows to transmit an excitation force to the molten metal and thus allowing for the ability to divide the melt ejected into uniform droplets, see page 4 of IMAE translation.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYATO in view of IMAE and APPLIED as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SHIBAYAMA (US 2021/0178478 A1).
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein HAYATO reference does not specifically teach of the nozzle portion comprises: an adapter coupled to one end of the crucible; and a nozzle with a certain diameter coupled to the adapter to eject the molten metal inside the crucible to the outside.
Whereupon, in SHIBIYAMA teaches of the crucible apparatus 10 having a crucible 11, and see in [0059-0062] of further having an adapter (see orifice part 17b that is seen as equivalent to the claimed adapter) that is connected to the crucible, whereupon the nozzle 17a is attachable/detachable to the to the nozzle fixing hole 11a or the upper end of the molten metal nozzle body 17a, see specifically in [0061], the adapter further being attached to the metal nozzle body 17a, see Figs. 10-11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the nozzle of the modified HAYATO with the adapter portion as taught by SHIBIYAMA as known manner of assembly of the nozzle to the crucible, as it allows for easy to exchange for the orifice part and of the nozzle, see in SHIBIYAMA [0061].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, more specifically the US references provided are generally to teach of the molten metal droplets form crucibles for spraying/forming a layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
