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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the filed specification in paras. [0065], [0070], and [0076] refers to “FIG. 2” but instead appears to describe Fig. 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the examined claims are directed to a device/apparatus. Recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
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(s) 1-10 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a configurable number of intermediate electrode plates” and “a configurable number of perforations” for each of the plates. The term “configurable number” implies a number that can be changed or adjusted and renders the claim unclear as to the particular structural requirement of the device/apparatus. The examiner notes that the claims/specification do not describe any structure of the device for changing a number of the intermediate electrode plates or for changing a number of the perforations on a given plate. Since the specification does not indicate that the “configuring” is performed by a structure of the device, then these limitations seem to indicate that the plate(s) and perforation(s) can vary in unexplained ways that would ultimately result in different devices. An apparatus claim covers the particular structure required for a given device, and the particular structure required for the intermediate electrode plate(s) and perforation(s) is unclear as to how a number of these elements is configurable. For further examination a configurable number is interpreted to mean essentially that the device includes one or more of the elements in view of the specification.
Claim 1 recites steps directed to operating the device but is unclear in terms of the required structure of the claimed device. Claim 1 recites that shapes of a particle beam are controlled “by one or more of adjusting methods comprising adjusting relative positions of the intermediate electrode plates with respect to the top and bottom electrode plates, changing the potentials applied to the electrode plates, and varying positions of the perforations on the intermediate electrode plates…” The recitation of a process step in the device claim requires at most the capability of the device to be used in performing the step; however, it is unclear in view of the specification how the disclosed device would be capable of adjusting the relative positions or varying a position of the perforations as claimed. These limitations seem to suggest than an operator or designer could change the device of claim 1 which does not clearly limit structure of the claimed device but instead renders the device claim indefinite as to the particular structure required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrode plates" in line 12. The claim has introduced a top electrode plate, a number of intermediate electrode plates, and a bottom electrode plate. As such, reference to “the electrode plates” is unclear as to which particular electrode plates are encompassed by the limitation.
Claims 3-5 and 10 also reference “the electrode plates” and are similarly unclear for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites steps directed to operating the device but is unclear in terms of the required structure of the claimed device. Claim 3 recites adjusting a motion path “by adjusting the relative positions of the intermediate electrode plates with respect to the top and bottom electrode plates, wherein the relative positions comprise relative angular positions and distances between the electrode plates.” The recitation of a process step in the device claim requires at most the capability of the device to be used in performing the step; however, it is unclear in view of the specification how the disclosed device would be capable of changing the relative positions as claimed. The limitations in claim 3 seem to suggest than an operator or designer could change the device of claim 1 which does not clearly further limit structure of the claimed device but instead renders the device claim indefinite as to the particular structure required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the distance" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites that “the potentials applied to the electrode plates are configured to toggle between different modes comprising…” The claim appears to attempt to further limit the potentials, i.e., voltages, applied to the electrodes in a given use of the device. The claim is unclear as to what particular structure of the device is limited by the recitation and how.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "other particles like electrons, protons, and ions" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 7-9 recite steps directed to operating the device but are unclear in terms of the required structure of the claimed device. Claim 7 recites “wherein a distribution of the spatial electric field is adjusted by adjusting the number and/or shape of the intermediate electrode plates.” The recitation of the process step in the device claim requires at most the capability of the device to perform the step; however, it is unclear in view of the specification how the disclosed device would be capable of changing the number and/or shape of the intermediate electrode plates. Similarly, claim 8 recites “by adjusting one or more of aperture sizes, the number of perforations, and shapes of the perforations on the intermediate electrode plates…” and claim 9 recites performing printing using the device for controlling where no printer has been claimed and the intermediate electrode plates can have two mutually exclusive configurations (a single perforation or a plurality of perforations). These limitations seem to suggest than an operator or designer could change the device of claim 1 which does not clearly further limit structure of the claimed device but instead renders the device claims indefinite.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rusinque et al., Numerical study of the controlled electrodeposition of charged nanoparticles in an electric field (2019).
Regarding claim 1, Rusinque discloses a device (electrode arrangement, Fig. 1) for controlling a spatial electric field for 3D printing (for controlled electrodeposition of charged nanoparticles driven by an electric field, Abstract), comprising:
A top electrode plate (“upper electrode,” ceiling of the deposition chamber, p. 29, Fig. 1, positioned above the mask electrode at the distance HD), a configurable number of intermediate electrode plates (mask electrode, Fig. 1), and a bottom electrode plate (substrate electrode, Fig. 1) disposed in sequence (Fig. 1);
Wherein each of the intermediate electrode plates is provided with a configurable number of perforations for electric field lines to pass through (the mask electrode has openings through which electric field lines pass, Figs. 1-2), so as to form motion channels of charged substances (Figs. 1-2, Fig. 3a shows trajectories of nanoparticles and electric field lines); wherein each of the top electrode plate, the intermediate electrode plates, and the bottom electrode plate has a configurable potential applied thereto (p. 29, description of Fig. 1; p. 31, section 3.1, electric potentials applied to substrate electrode, ceiling and mask electrodes).
The last clause of claim 1, “wherein shapes of a particle beam formed by the charged substances are controlled by one or more of adjusting methods comprising adjusting relative positions of the intermediate electrode plates with respect to the top and bottom electrode plates, changing the potentials applied to the electrode plates, and varying positions of the perforations on the intermediate electrode plates, wherein the spatial electric field is constructed such that the charged substances migrate to a specific position on the bottom electrode plate, controlling feature sizes and printing locations of 3D nanoarchitectures,” is directed to a manner of operating the device as opposed to the particular structure of the claimed device. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. 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. Since the prior art apparatus teaches the structures claimed and further is intended to shape a particle beam formed by charged substances via the applied potentials and position of the perforations so as to control the charged substances to migrate to a specific position on the bottom electrode plate for controlling feature sizes and printing locations of 3D nanoarchitectures (Figs. 1-2, Abstract), the prior art apparatus meets the claim requirements. Particular method steps of adjusting elements are not limiting to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 1. Rusinque discloses that the focusing effect and shape/magnitude of the electric field lines can be changed by changing the potential difference (p. 32, section 3.3), electrode gap, spacing between mask openings, mask geometry, and opening shape (pp. 32-33, section 3.4). As such, the device described by Rusinque is capable of adjusting the electric field and the corresponding motion path. The recitation in claim 2 of performing adjustment methods, i.e., a manner of operating the device, does not add particular structure to the device and thus is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 3, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 2. Rusinque discloses that changing the electrode gap produces a corresponding change in electric field strength, focusing effect, and pattern width (p. 33, first full paragraph). As such, Rusinque discloses that a relative position of the electrodes can be changed. The recitations in claim 3 of adjusting a motion path and adjusting a bending state and dimensions of the particle beam by adjusting positions and distances between the plates, i.e., a manner of operating the device, do not add particular structure to the device and thus are not further limiting.
Regarding claim 4, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 2. Rusinque discloses that potentials are applied to the electrode plates (p. 29, description of Fig. 1; p. 31, section 3.1) and changing the potential difference changes the deposition pattern (p. 38, Conclusions). As such, the device described by Rusinque is capable of having adjusted potentials to adjust the resultant particle beam. The recitation in claim 4 of performing adjustments, i.e., a manner of operating the device, does not add particular structure to the device and thus is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 5, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 4. Claim 5 further limits the potentials, i.e., voltages, applied to the electrode plates in a use of the device, which is unclear in view of the specification as set forth in the above section. Rusinque discloses that potentials are applied to the electrodes to achieve a desired potential difference (p. 31, section 3.1). As such, the electrode plates disclosed by Rusinque were capable of receiving different potentials which is considered to meet the required structural capability.
Regarding claim 6, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the charged substances comprise particles ranging from atomic to microns in size (nanoparticles, Abstract), and the charged substances are formed by charged metals (copper, silver, iron, p. 32, section 3.2). Note that a material worked upon by a device in its intended use does not impart patentability to apparatus claims (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 7, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 1. Rusinque discloses that modifying the geometry of the mask electrode changes the electric field (pp. 32-35, section 3.4). As such, the device described by Rusinque is capable of having an adjusted intermediate electrode plate configuration to adjust the resultant electric field lines and shape of the charged substances. The recitation in claim 7 of adjusting a number and/or shape of the intermediate electrode plates and moving the charged substances, i.e., a manner of operating the device, does not add particular structure to the device and thus is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 8, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 1. Rusinque discloses that modifying the openings/perforations of the mask electrode changes the electric field (pp. 32-35, section 3.4). As such, the device described by Rusinque is capable of having an adjusted perforation configuration to adjust the resultant particle beam. The recitation in claim 8 of adjusting a size/number/position/shape of the perforations, i.e., a manner of operating the device, does not add particular structure to the device and thus is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 9, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 8. As set forth in the above section, the claim is indefinite in reciting two mutually exclusive configurations for each of the intermediate electrode plates. As such, either of the configurations is considered to meet the claim. Rusinque further discloses each of the intermediate electrode plates is configured with a plurality of accessible perforations (Fig. 1, openings of mask electrode).
Regarding claim 10, Rusinque discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the environment around the electrode plates is a gas (air or nitrogen, p. 32, first paragraph; p. 32, section 3.3). The claim does not recite that the device itself includes any additional structure. Note that a material worked upon by a device in its intended use does not impart patentability to apparatus claims (MPEP 2115).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250375815 A1, Choi et al. disclose a relevant configuration for deposition of 3D structures from nanoparticles using a conductive floating mask.
US 20140212641 A1, Choi et al. disclose a configuration for producing 3D nanostructures via movement of charged particles along electric field lines through perforations of a mask.
US 20020048770 A1, Morozov et al. disclose the use of a conductive mask concentrating charged particles for preferential deposition to a substrate, with voltages applied to optimize focusing the particles onto target deposit areas (Fig. 4A).
Choi et al. journal article (2015) and Choi dissertation (2016) describe controlled electrostatic focusing of charged nanoparticles via an electrified mask for assembling 3D structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights