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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group Iin the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, essentially, the cited JP ‘595 does not disclose claim 1, thus claim 1 constitutes a special technical feature, and, therefore, there is unity of invention. The instant Examiner agrees with the assessment of JP ‘595. However, the argument is moot as claim 1 is found to be known elsewhere in the art. See the rejection below.
Therefore, Unity of Invention is still found to be lacking, a posteriori.
The requirement is still deemed applicable and is therefore made FINAL.
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 8, 13, 18, and 19 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 8 recites the limitation "the resistive heater layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected based upon their dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the components" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks et al. (US 2017/80268100) in view of Olieslagers et al. (US 20210078245). Regarding claim 1, Hendriks et al. disclose “a printing device (Figure 1) for printing a substance on a target surface of a target, the printing device comprising: a carrier (item 10) for carrying a specimen of the substance to be printed; and a heater facility (item 12) configured to locally heat the specimen at a contact surface to vaporize a portion of the specimen at the side of its contact surface, to therewith induce a vapor pressure that causes a transfer of a remainder of the specimen towards the target surface (paragraph 14).” Hendriks et al. fail to disclose that the carrier has “at a first main side a hydrophobic coating,” “the specimen resting with a contact surface on the coating.” However, Olieslagers et al. teach adding a hydrophobic coating to a surface used in printing in order to prevent drops of the printing material adhering to the surface (paragraphs 154 and 155). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a hydrophobic coating to the carrier of Hendriks et al. to prevent drops of the printing substance from adhering to the carrier. Regarding claim 2, Olieslagers et al. fail to disclose “wherein the hydrophobic coating has a thickness in a range of about 0.001 micron to about 10 micron,” leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filing of the invention, it was known to coat surfaces with a hydrophobic coating having a thickness of around a few hundred nanometers up to a few microns in order to provide hydrophobic properties to the surfaces. It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the hydrophobic coating in the modified apparatus of Hendriks et al. at a thickness of from a few hundred nanometers up to a few microns because it was known in the art to be suitable for the purpose of providing hydrophobic properties to the surface. Additionally, it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, the thickness of the coating clearly directly affects the cost of the coating. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness to about 0.001 micron to about 10 micron in order to determine the amount of coating which is optimal or workable, at least cost-wise.
Regarding claim 10, Hendriks et al., as modified, further disclose “wherein the heater facility comprises a pulsed light source (abstract), arranged at a second main side of the carrier opposite the first main side (Figure 1), that is configured to generate a pulsed beam of light to be transmitted through the carrier and the hydrophobic coating and to be absorbed in: the contact surface of the specimen of the substance to be printed (paragraph 14, Figure 1).” Regarding claim 12, Hendriks et al. as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, but fail to disclose how the material is applied to the substrate, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. That is, Hendriks et al., as modified, fail to disclose “further comprising a printing unit configured to deposit the substance on the hydrophobic coating, wherein the unit is taken from the group consisting of: a screen printing unit, and a stencil printing unit.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filing of the invention, it was known to use a screen coater to apply a material to a surface. It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a screen coater/printer in order to apply the functional material in the modified printer of Hendriks et al. because it is known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks et al. and Olieslagers et al., further in view of Wolk et al. (US 6140009). Regarding claim 3, Hendirks et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the heater facility comprises a resistive heater layer arranged between the carrier and the hydrophobic coating.” It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. Wolk et al. disclose that a thermal transfer element can be heated by application of directed heat via, inter alia, a resistive heating element or a beam of light (column 4, lines 53-64). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a thermal transfer element instead of the laser of Hendriks et al. because it has been shown in the art to be equivalent for the intended purpose. Upon carrying out the modification, one having ordinary skill in the art would have only two places to put the thermal transfer element layer: below or above the carrier. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art could have easily pursued either option with a reasonable expectation that putting the thermal transfer element in the locations would be successful. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to put the thermal transfer element layer between the carrier and the hydrophobic coating because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2143(E).
Claims 4, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks et al. and Olieslagers et al., further in view of Nangoy et al. (US 2015/0366004). Regarding claim 4, Hendriks et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “further comprising a support unit with a plurality of support elements for supporting the carrier at a second main side opposite the first main side, which support elements define cooling channels for conducting a cooling liquid.” However, Nangoy et al. disclose a multi zone chuck assembly which allows for control of temperature of the chuck and assembly (paragraph 2). The chuck assembly includes a layer with a top surface to support a workpiece. A cooling channel base disposed below the dielectric layer includes a plurality of fluid conduits disposed beneath the top surface. A chuck assembly further includes a plurality of resistive heater rods spatially distributed across the chuck assembly. See Figures 2 and 5. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Hendriks et al. to include a plurality of support elements supporting the carrier which define cooling channels in order to control the temperature of the system. Regarding claim 6, Hendriks et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 4 above, except “wherein one or more of the plurality of support elements have mounted therein a temperature sensor.” However, Nangoy et al. teach controlling to a setpoint temperature (paragraph 22) using a feedback control (paragraph 23). Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that measuring the temperature using a sensor would be necessary to control the temperature using a feedback control, and would be motivated to provide one in the modified system of Hendriks et al. Furthermore, Examiner asserts that a support element would be a logical location for one having ordinary skill in the art to place a temperature sensor, and therefore would mount a temperature sensor on one of the support elements in order to effectively control the temperature. See MPEP §2143(E). Regarding claim 9, Nangoy et al. further disclose “configured to maintain the carrier at a predetermined temperature, before the a transfer of the remainder of the specimen towards the target surface, by a combination of cooling with the support unit and selectively heating with the resistive heater layer or with a separate temperature control layer with resistive heaters to equalize the temperature over the entire printing plate controlled by a temperature control system (paragraph 22).”
Regarding claim 11, Hendriks et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “further comprising a controller for controlling environmental conditions.” However, Examiner interprets the controller used when modified in accordance with Nangoy et al., as discussed above with respect to claim 4, to be the recited controller in that the temperature of the system is controlled.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks et al., Olieslagers et al., and Wolk et al., further in view of Nangoy et al. (US 2015/0366004).
Regarding claim 20, Hendriks et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 3 above, except “further comprising a support unit with a plurality of support elements for supporting the carrier at a second main side opposite the first main side, which support elements define cooling channels for conducting a cooling liquid.” However, Nangoy et al. disclose a multi zone chuck assembly which allows for control of temperature of the chuck and assembly (paragraph 2). The chuck assembly includes a layer with a top surface to support a workpiece. A cooling channel base disposed below the dielectric layer includes a plurality of fluid conduits disposed beneath the top surface. A chuck assembly further includes a plurality of resistive heater rods spatially distributed across the chuck assembly. See Figures 2 and 5. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Hendriks et al. to include a plurality of support elements supporting the carrier which define cooling channels in order to control the temperature of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights