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 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abernathy et al. (“Abernathy” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2005/0001869) in view of Niikura et al. (“Niikura” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2023/0353893).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Abernathy discloses a discharge state inspection method comprising:
an ejection step of ejecting droplets (item 34, figure 2) from a discharge device (item 12, figures 1-2) toward a weight scale (item 52, figure 2);
an event data acquisition step of acquiring, by an event sensor, event data of droplets ejected from the discharge device (paragraph [0040], computer 18 receives preset droplet dispensing times to determine the dispensing events) and flying toward the weight scale (paragraphs [0036], [0044], during material volume calibration, the droplets fly directly toward the weight scale);
a weighing step of acquiring, from the weight scale, weight value data of droplets ejected in the ejection step (paragraph [0036]); and
a discharge state inspection device (item 18, figure 1) performing an inspection step of inspecting a discharge amount of the discharge device based on the event data and the weight value data (paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0040-0045]);
wherein the discharge state inspection device comprises a storage device (memory of computer 18, paragraphs [0011], [0027], [0036], [0040], [0045]) that stores a discharge state inspection program for inspecting a discharge amount of a discharge device that discharges droplets; and a processing device (processor of computer 18, paragraph [0027]) configured to execute the discharge state inspection program,
wherein, in the inspection step, a flying direction of each droplet is detected based on the event data (paragraphs [0014], [0036]), whether or not each droplet lands on the weight scale is determined, and droplets to be used for calculation of the discharge amount using the weight value data are identified based on the determination (paragraphs [0036], [0045], [0067-0068]), and the discharge state inspection device is configured to inspect the discharge device for flying abnormality based on the event data (paragraphs [0064-0067])
Niikura teaches another discharge and inspection device comprising a discharge device (item 11, figure 2) that discharges droplets (item 10, figure 2);
an event data acquisition step of acquiring, by an event sensor (item 12, figure 2, paragraphs [0074-0075]), event data of droplets ejected from the discharge device;
an inspection step of inspecting a discharge amount of the discharge device based on the event data via a control device (item 13, figure 2) (paragraphs [0075-0078]);
wherein, in the inspection step, the discharge device is inspected for flying abnormality based on the event data (control device 13 reconfigures discharge device 11 upon a feedback signal based on event data, paragraphs [0075-0078], [0113-0118], [0238]), and determining whether droplets land on the weight scale or not based on their flying direction (paragraphs [0122], [0228], [0246]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Abernathy as taught by Niikura to provide an event sensor module that captures droplet events and droplet weight data, transfers the event and weight data to a control device and the control device inspects the event data and checks the droplets for any abnormalities and also inspects and reconfigures the dispensing parameters based on the feedback received from the event and weight data. Doing so only involves a brief modification and is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Abernathy as modified by Niikura teaches that, in the inspection step, a number of droplets that are abnormally flying is calculated based on the event data, and a discharge amount per droplet of the discharge device is inspected based on the calculated number of droplets ((paragraphs [0014], [0036], Abernathy) and (paragraphs [0078], [0122], [0228], [0246], Niikura).
Regarding claim 4, Abernathy as modified by Niikura teaches that in the inspection step, a number of droplets that do not land on the weight scale is detected based on a flying direction of a droplet detected from the event data ((paragraphs [0014], [0036], Abernathy) and (paragraphs [0078], [0122], [0228], [0246], Niikura) and the discharge amount of the discharge device is inspected based on a number of droplets after subtracting the number of droplets that do not land on the weight scale (paragraphs [0036], [0045], [0067-0068], Abernathy).
Regarding claim 5, Abernathy teaches that, in the inspection step, a reference weight is calculated by multiplying a number of droplets that have landed on a weighing pan of the weight scale by a target discharge amount and is compared with the weight value data, and when a difference amount between the reference weight and the weight value data is larger than a set threshold, abnormality is determined (paragraph [0036], [0045], [0067-0068]).
Regarding claims 6-9, Abernathy as modified by Niikura teaches that the inspection step includes following steps: (A) a step of adding a label to a droplet detected based on the event data; (B) a step of detecting a droplet with an abnormal flying speed based on the event data; (C) a step of detecting a number of droplets that do not land on the weight scale based on a flying direction of a droplet detected from the event data; (D) a step of calculating a number of droplets having the labels different from each other among droplets detected in the steps (B) and (C); and (E) a step of determining that there is flying abnormality when a ratio of the number of droplets calculated in the step (D) to a number of droplets ejected in the ejection step is a certain level or more; a step of inspecting a discharge amount per droplet of the discharge device based on a number of droplets obtained by subtracting the number of droplets calculated in the step (D) from the number of droplets ejected in the ejection step ((paragraphs [0014], [0036], [0045], [0067-0068], Abernathy) and (paragraphs [0078], [0122], [0185], [0186], [0228], [0246], Niikura).
Regarding claim 12, Abernathy as modified by Niikura teaches that the event sensor includes a first event sensor and a second event sensor, the first event sensor is disposed in an X-direction that is perpendicular to a Z-direction from the discharge device toward the weight scale, and the second event sensor is disposed in a Y-direction that is perpendicular to the Z- direction from the discharge device toward the weight scale and is perpendicular to the X-direction (Niikura teaches multiple event sensors oriented differently, paragraph [0340]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the event data detector in the device of Abernathy as taught by Niikura to have multiple event data sensors that are oriented in differently in different axis to capture droplet data from different angles and positions for accurate capturing of the data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 regarding the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under Abernathy and Niikura have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, in light of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 11, that the prior arts, alone or taken in combination, do not teach that the event data is acquired of fluid droplets flying toward the weight scale, and that the during the inspection step, the flying direction of each droplet is detected, along with whether or not each droplets lands on the weight scale is determined to calculate the discharge amount.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to point out, as admitted by the applicant, that Abernathy (in paragraph [0045]) teaches that to run a material volume calibration subroutine, the nozzle 48 is positioned directly over the weighing station and droplets are dispensed to run weight calibration of the droplets and adjust the dispensing parameters if desired. Thus, even if such operation is run during calibration stage, the claimed recitation of acquiring even data of droplets ejected from the nozzle and flying toward the weight scale is taught, contrary to applicant’s assertions. Examiner would like to point out that majority of the claim language is aimed towards an inspection method and the claim does not require that the droplets only fly towards the weight scale and/or a workpiece at all times or only during a calibration stage.
Secondly, examiner would like to note that applicant argued that Abernathy and Niikura do not teach acquiring flying direction data and whether or not each droplets lands on the weight scale is determined to calculate the discharge amount because both of prior arts are unrelated to the technology contemplated by the instant invention. Applicant did not point to any specific structure or teachings of the prior arts that allegedly did not teach the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that Abernathy and Niikura are non-analogous arts, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both of the prior arts are related to droplet dispensing apparatuses and inspection methos to ensure optimal dispensing. Thus, the prior arts related and analogous to the invention.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, as clearly recited in the previous rejection, the added limitations of claims 1, 10, 11, regarding the flying direction data and whether or not the droplets land on the weight scale were already part of claim 4. There, rejection showed that the prior arts, alone and in combination, taught the subject matter of claim 4 including the determining flying direction and droplet data on the weight scale. First, Abernathy teaches explicitly, using the weight scale to determine the total droplet volume that lands on the scale and make changing to the dispensing volume accordingly (paragraphs [0014], [0036], [0044-0045]). Any deficiency for the claimed limitations from the teachings of Abernathy is cured by teachings of Niikura which teaches the observance and calculation of droplet flight data (paragraph [0246], Niikura).
Thus, the combination of prior arts teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 11 as discussed in detail above. Dependent claims 2-9 and 12 are also taught by the same combination of prior arts. Therefore, claims 1-12 remain rejected.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights