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
As noted in previous office action, present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Functional limitations are usually followed by a linking term “for”, “configured to”, “performing”, “carry out”, “execute” etc. and concerns operation of the apparatus. In the instant case, configured to support and to move the slab, configured to contact the slab (claim 1); to be able to position the applicator frame, to be able to release a conductive element (claim 2) refer to operational limitations and do not structurally contribute to the apparatus. Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. For example, “slab” and “conductive element or paste” are workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenson et al. (WO 2014/140192 A2, of record, “Martenson”) in view of Qiu et al. (WO 2021/003239 A1, of record, “Qiu”).
Regarding claim 1, Martenson discloses a machine for applying conductive paste on slabs comprising (figs. 8-12): a conveyor 2002, 3002 or 4002 (figs. 9-11) provided with a horizontal support surface configured to support a slab (workpiece W) and to move the slab along a horizontal advancement direction (figs. 9-11, [00125-00126]); and a movable device 2006, 3006 or 4006 (frame with depositing heads) for applying a conductive paste on the horizontal support surface at least along a first sliding direction parallel to the horizontal advancement direction (y-direction- figs. 9A, 10), so that a conductive element (e.g. paste or viscous media- [00116, 00134]) can be released/applied in two or more given axial positions, defined along the first sliding direction, of the slab on the conveyor following a translation along the first sliding direction [00112-00115, 00128-00129, 00148-00150].
Martenson is silent in terms of a centering unit. However, such mechanism is known in the art. Qiu (also directed to viscous fluid dispenser system- abstract) teaches a workpiece platform 8 having a flat support surface and including a centering unit 11 (fixture- fig. 1) configured to contact a workpiece by temporarily blocking and centering it on the support surface, wherein the fixture unit is adjustable to accommodate workpieces of varying sizes and/or shapes [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a centering fixture into the conveyor of Martenson because doing so would enable to align the workpiece and be adjustable to accommodate workpieces of varying sizes and/or shapes, as suggested by Qiu. Thus, Martenson as modified by Qiu discloses a centering unit configured to contact and align the slab/workpiece in the machine.
As to claim 2, Martenson discloses that the application device comprises a first applicator frame 2006, 3006 or 4006 movable with respect to the conveyor along a first sliding direction parallel to the horizontal advancement direction (y-direction- fig. 9A, 10), so as to be able to position the first applicator frame in any given axial position, defined along the advancement direction of the slab resting on the support surface and to release a conductive element thereon in two or more axial positions on the slab W (figs. 9-10, [00112-00115, 00128-00129]).
As to claim 3, Martenson shows that the first applicator frame 2006 has a longitudinal extension along a longitudinal axis (x-axis- figs. 9A, 10) substantially horizontal and orthogonal to the first sliding direction (y-direction) and has a length substantially equal to the width of the support surface and a width less than the length of the slab so that it can be arranged superimposed in plan in any axial portion thereof that is less than its total axial length (fig. 9A). Examiner notes that “length of the slab” is based on workpiece and features relating to the workpiece do not structurally limit the apparatus since the machine in Martenson is configured to process slabs of different length(s) and/or width(s).
As to claim 4, Martenson shows that the first applicator frame 2006 or 3006 (figs. 9-10) is configured to release and apply a longitudinal conductive strip on the slab, wherein the conductive strip has a longitudinal extension mainly orthogonal to the horizontal advancement direction and extends longitudinally for a main portion of the length of the first applicator frame itself. The depositing heads in the machine of Martenson are designed to apply different forms of conductive materials, including powder, liquid, or bar/strip.
As to claim 5, Martenson teaches that the jetting apparatus frame includes gantry beams [0077-0080, fig. 8]. The conveyor in Martenson intrinsically includes at least one frame/support (not shown in figure). Additionally, Qiu also teaches a gantry positioning system 9 providing x, y and z movements and movably support a dispenser with four degrees of freedom (figs. 2-3; [0006, 0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first applicator frame supported by a gantry frame slidably associated with a frame of the conveyor along the first horizontal sliding direction since gantry setup is well-known.
As to claim 6, Martenson discloses that the first applicator frame is vertically movable along a vertical direction (z-direction- figs. 9b, 10), alternating between a position distal from the conveyor and a position proximal to the conveyor [00115, 00128].
As to claim 8, in another embodiment, Martenson teaches at least two applicator frames 4004A-4004B with independently movable deposition head assemblies (fig. 11, [00148-00150]), wherein each deposition head is able to release viscous element/medium in two or more axial positions of the same slab/workpiece; the viscous medium may be different types [00152, 0155]. In this manner, the mount process would benefit from a machine adapted to mixed production, board modalities and specific component footprints on the PCB [00155, 00158]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a movable second applicator frame with respect to the conveyor along a first sliding direction in the machine of Martenson in order to fabricate components or assemblies for mixed production as necessary for different PCB board modalities, as suggested by Martenson.
As to claim 9, Martenson as modified in claim 8 above discloses a second applicator frame movable with respect to the conveyor along a second horizontal sliding direction and orthogonal to the first sliding direction, so as to be able to position the second applicator frame in any given transverse position and to release a conductive element to two or more transverse positions of the same slab/workpiece (fig. 11).
As to claim 10, Martenson teaches that the jetting apparatus frame includes gantry beams [0077-0080, fig. 8]. The conveyor in Martenson intrinsically includes at least one frame/support (not shown in figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the second applicator frame supported by a carriage slidably associated, along the second sliding direction, with a gantry frame slidably associated with a frame of the conveyor in the machine of Martenson since carriage and gantry setup are well-known movement mechanisms.
As to claim 11, Martenson discloses that the applicator frame is vertically movable along a vertical direction (z-direction- figs. 9b, 10), alternating between a position distal from the conveyor and a position proximal to the conveyor [00115, 00128].
As to claim 12, Martenson does not disclose that the applicator frame is rotatable about a vertical axis. However, such feature is known in the art. Qiu teaches a gantry positioning system with frame being rotatable about a vertical C axis thereby resulting in four degrees of freedom (figs. 2-3, [0026-0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide rotation capability to the applicator frames in Martenson because doing so would improve flexibility in positioning the applicator to apply the conductive element/medium to the workpiece.
As to claim 13, Martenson as modified in claim 8 above discloses that the second applicator frame has a longitudinal extension along a substantially horizontal longitudinal axis and has a length less than the width of the support surface along a direction orthogonal to the advancement direction (fig. 11).
As to claim 14, the second applicator frame is configured to apply an inscription or design on the slab/workpiece. Examiner notes that particular type of material (inscription or paste) does not limit the applicator frame.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenson in view of Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doyle (CN 103476588 B, of record).
As to claims 7 and 15, Martenson or Qiu fails to mention the applicator frame comprising at least one doctor blade. However, Doyle (drawn to depositing viscous materials on a substrate) teaches it is known in prior art to spread dispensing paste by moving blade scrapper/squeegee (Background- [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a spreading doctor blade in the applicator frame of Martenson since such blade/scrapper is conventionally known and because doing so would enable to effectively distribute the material/paste on the workpiece surface. It is also noted that only one blade is required due to term ‘or’. The combination of Martenson, Qiu & Doyle renders the claims obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 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.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons. Recent amendment to claims overcomes previous 112 rejection. Examiner also notes that new claims 19-22 appear allowable over prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
Qiu's fixture is described as a clamp to immobilize the workpiece, which is a generic locking function. In contrast, the claimed "centering unit" performs a specific, crucial operation that is not taught or suggested by Qiu: it aligns the vertical median plane of the slab with the median plane of the conveyor. This establishes a fixed and known reference system, which simplifies the architecture and operation of the application device. This is a significant technical advantage, particularly in the field of transparent glass slabs where optical reference points are unreliable.
In response to Applicant's argument that Qiu fails to show certain features of the centering unit, examiner notes that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., specific operation to align the vertical median plane of the slab with the median plane of the conveyor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner submits that “centering unit” as recited is broad; it is not limited by specific function (e.g. aligning median plane as argued). The clamp fixture 11 of Qiu is configured to contact and center a slab workpiece. Furthermore, examiner points out that a glass slab is material worked upon, which does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus.
Applicant also argues:
Applicant further submits that the proposed combination is improper due to a "teaching away" in Martenson. Martenson provides a clear "teaching away" from the Examiner's proposed modification. Martenson's entire inventive thrust is to increase production speed by applying the paste "on the fly" to a continuously moving substrate, thereby avoiding the need to stop and clamp the work-piece.
Modifying Martenson to re-introduce a clamping system, as taught by Qiu, would directly contradict and frustrate the primary purpose of Martenson's invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art, when looking to improve upon Martenson, would be motivated to enhance its "on the fly" capabilities, not to implement a feature that negates its core benefit.
In response, examiner submits that proposed modification does not hinder any motion of the jetting head/nozzle and thus, it does not interfere with jetting “on the fly” capability to deposit viscous medium/paste in Martenson. In other words, a slab workpiece can be centered by the fixture while the jetting head/nozzle is continuously moved over the slab workpiece to deposit paste droplets “on the fly”- Martenson states that “on the fly” principle relates to ability of the jetting nozzle to be in motion without stopping at each location [0065]- this does not require that workpiece must also be in continuous motion along with the jetting nozzle. In fact, Martenson discloses jetting viscous medium/paste on a workpiece held in a fixed position with respect to moving jetting head and still improving production speed [0074]. Therefore, the proposed combination is not contradictory and does not teach away from Martenson.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights