DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 05/18/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 for further examination. Claims 11-13 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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-AlA 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: “exhaust unit” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, lines 2, 11 & 13 recite the limitation “the chamber”, wherein it is unclear which chamber is being referenced as there are multiple chambers recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the chamber” as “the film chamber” recited in line 3. To correct this problem, amend lines 2, 11 & 13 to recite “the film chamber”.
As regards to claim 1, line 6 recites the limitation “each hopper”, then line 7 recites “each of the plurality of hoppers”, wherein it is unclear whether they are the same. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “each hopper” as “each of the plurality of hoppers” recited in line 6. To correct this problem, amend line 6 to recite “each of the plurality of hoppers”.
As regards to claim 1, line 1 recites “adhesive powder”, then lines 8 & 9 recite the limitation “powder”, then lines 20 & 23 recite “powder”, wherein it is unclear whether they are the same. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “powder”, “the powder” as “the adhesive powder” recited in line 1. To correct this problem, amend lines 8, 9, 20 & 23 to recite “the adhesive powder”.
As regards to claim 1, lines 19 & 22 recite “film tray”, which is previously recited in line 4, wherein it is unclear whether they are the same. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “film tray” as “the film tray” recited in line 4. To correct this problem, amend lines 19 & 22 to recite “the film tray”.
As regards to claim 1, line 19 recites “upper hopper-receiving chamber”, which is previously recited in line 11, wherein it is unclear whether they are the same. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “upper hopper-receiving chamber” as “the upper hopper-receiving chamber” recited in line 11. To correct this problem, amend line 19 to recite “the upper hopper-receiving chamber”.
As regards to claim 1, line 21 recites “lower hopper-receiving chamber”, which is previously recited in line 13, wherein it is unclear whether they are the same. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “lower hopper-receiving chamber” as “the lower hopper-receiving chamber” recited in line 13. To correct this problem, amend line 21 to recite “the lower hopper-receiving chamber”.
As regards to claim 1, lines 22-23 recite “to cause powder that falls from the film tray to be received in another of the plurality of hoppers located in the lower hopper-receiving chamber to fall on the film tray” which is unclear how powder falls from the film tray to the fil tray. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “to cause powder that falls from the film tray to be received in another of the plurality of hoppers located in the lower hopper-receiving chamber to fall on the film tray” as “to cause powder that falls from the film tray to be received in another of the plurality of hoppers located in the lower hopper-receiving chamber to reuse excess adhesive powder collected in the another of the plurality of hoppers in a subsequent coating process” (spec: [0009]). To correct this problem, amend lines 22-23 to recite “to cause powder that falls from the film tray to be received in another of the plurality of hoppers located in the lower hopper-receiving chamber to reuse excess adhesive powder collected in the another of the plurality of hoppers in a subsequent coating process”.
As regards to claim 4, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the chamber”, wherein it is unclear which chamber is being referenced as there are multiple chambers recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the chamber” as “the film chamber” recited in line 3. To correct this problem, amend lines 1-2 to recite “the film chamber”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-10 would be allowable if amended to overcome the current rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. Claims 1-10 would be allowable because the closest prior arts of record, Haas et al. (US 6,261,012 B1), Shutic et al. (US 2004/0137144A1), Lutz et al. (US 11,020,762 B2), Walther (US 2009/0056864 A1) and none of the other cited closest prior arts of record teach nor suggest “an upper hopper-receiving chamber located above the film chamber and adapted to removably receive any of the plurality of hoppers; a lower hopper-receiving chamber located below the film chamber and adapted to removably receive any of the plurality of hoppers; an actuating lever that is adapted to selectively move the powder retaining plate into the open position; and a vibration mechanism comprising a motor and a vibration linkage that mechanically connects the motor to the film tray, the vibration linkage adapted to cause the film tray to oscillate; wherein the film chamber, the film tray, and the upper hopper-receiving chamber are configured to cause the adhesive powder released from one of the plurality of hoppers located in the upper hopper-receiving chamber to fall on the film tray; and wherein the film chamber, the film tray, and the lower hopper-receiving chamber are configured to cause the adhesive powder that falls from the film tray to be received in another of the plurality of hoppers located in the lower hopper-receiving chamber to reuse excess adhesive powder collected in the another of the plurality of hoppers in a subsequent coating process” as in the context of independent claim 1.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights